|
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
  
Location: A Blue State | I'm responding to posts from the Meditation forum...
Cyndi or HotYogi wrote:
I recently saw a TV program (I think it was Pat Robert's channel) where they were having a "panel discussion" on various religions and one of the panelists with real impressive credentials (I think he had a PhD in divinity from a leading university) said that the chanting of Om activates demons and propitiates Satan. I think I switched the channel at that moment.
Cyndi is Rolling on the Floor....
No wonder my Baptist Father and Brother is having such a hard time dealing with my Hindu husband...is that what they are saying these days???? I'll be sure NOT to wear my Om necklace in front of them...they might freak out and start chanting Bible scriptures to me. I started to go visit my Father after I visited the Temple yesterday...I guess all that Tika on my head would have made them pass out...geez, what will they think of next. I guess they'll be saying the anti-christ is from India or something wierd like that.
I find this totally scary! But it's coming from the same general place as the
attack on Teletubby Tinky Winky and now SpongeBob SquarePants. These folks
aren't just paranoid, they are cultural terrorists.
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-02-28 8:57 AM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
 
| Beyond scary, BG   I respect people having an honest questioning or even skepticism about chanting om and have no problem with people opting out of chanting etc. but fear mongering is just not acceptable. People really need to understand the difference between theology and superstition and not let their so-called leaders get away with this sort of stuff. | |
| | |
| I have a friend who asked the minister of the Baptist church across the road from her if she could use the church hall to hold yoga classes.....She was turned down unfortunately(surprise surprise)....I think it is so sad and so ignorant. It seems some people think that yoga is a religion. It is a philosophy and the religions of people who wish to practice should not be an issue.
Namaste and Om Shanti
Laura | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Bad Guy wrote: (sorry I like to say Bad, its looks like proper english, heehee:~) I find this totally scary! But it's coming from the same general place as the attack on Teletubby Tinky Winky and now SpongeBob SquarePants. These folks aren't just paranoid, they are cultural terrorists. and Cyndi is trembling: You should try living with a person like this for all of your childhood years...talk about oppression and torture. I can certainly relate to the Tibetans and what they had to endure...some of us Americans have endured growing up in that environment too, just on a subtle level. Speaking of the general place and where this comes from......I asked my Father when he voted for GWB his main reason why?? He explained to me that GWB was protecting our country and he did not want to see the UN control us and that he was the only one that had the guts to go after terrorism. That paranoia you mentioned...hmm. I don't really want to start a debate about GWB, because we all know about it, but it is interesting that this fear is what is leading our country. It gives me the creeps sometimes to be around some of my family with this mentality and they are soooo happy right now.
| |
| | |
| Just in case you have a doubt about Pat Robertson's quote. Here's a related one.
http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/BringItOn/health-index.asp
Shortened.
Q Do you think it's OK for a Christian to practice Pilates techniques?
A. Pat Robertson
I see nothing wrong with doing Pilates. It has to do with stretching and very interesting exercises. Some of these yoga teachers come with their little chants and little bowls and towels and all of this stuff that goes along with yoga, including special spiritual breathing exercises. . . . but it doesn't seem to have any spiritual connotations. 
Wonder what Patricia Walden from Boston who how runs her yoga studios out of several churches would think of that.
Or the minister and his wife in my neighborhood who atend classes weekly. 
It seems that this comment embodies a logical fallacy called a strawman. Just discuss a small part of a complex issue then destroy it.
Edited by MrD 2005-02-28 8:01 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Cyndi - 2005-02-28 7:14 PM
Bad Guy wrote: (sorry I like to say Bad, its looks like proper english, heehee:~)
I am not Bad. I am Bay.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | MrD - 2005-02-28 7:46 PM
Just in case you have a doubt about Pat Robertson's quote. Here's a related one.
http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/BringItOn/health-index.asp
Shortened.
Q Do you think it's OK for a Christian to practice Pilates techniques?
A. Pat Robertson
I see nothing wrong with doing Pilates. It has to do with stretching and very interesting exercises. Some of these yoga teachers come with their little chants and little bowls and towels and all of this stuff that goes along with yoga, including special spiritual breathing exercises. . . . but it doesn't seem to have any spiritual connotations.
Wonder what Patricia Walden from Boston who how runs her yoga studios out of several churches would think of that.
Or the minister and his wife in my neighborhood who atend classes weekly.
It seems that this comment embodies a logical fallacy called a strawman. Just discuss a small part of a complex issue then destroy it.
You should look up what he said about Hinduism in 1995....this is one scary evil man.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Well, curious minds would like to know what he said...So, what did Pat say about Hinduism? Do u have a reference, I really am serious. I haven't heard to much about stuff like this - I live in a strange area where people are mostly Christian and a few of those white supremest people - which is like something from the x-files - calling Mulder & Scully. I wonder what they must be thinking when they see my house that is lined with Prayer Flags and Buddha statutes everywhere. Once my step-Father who's a native, told me he was worried that someone would burn my house down. Thank goodness these people around here stay loaded on their moonshine and probably think its a barbeque joint on top of a mountain, LOL!! Don't worry Bay, I have always wanted to say that to you...it is the first thing that comes to my mind..like oh its that Bad Guy who mispelled his name:~)
Edited by Cyndi 2005-02-28 10:10 PM
| |
| | |
| I recently re-watched a TV programme here (made in the US) which discussed why gun crime is so high in the states even when compared with other countries where it is legal to have arms, such as Canada. After much debate and conversation with folk on both sides of the debate, the commentator came to the conclusion that it is the culture of fear prevalent in US society which drives this issue. I find it very interesting, and not a little scary, to see the same conclusion being made here.
Other countries also suffer terrorist attack and extensive criticism by those perporting to be fighting some form of Western Imperialist conspiracy but don't develop social paranoia because of it, so I guess my next question should be why the fear?
Fiona | |
| | |
| The reason I wanted to address this topic is because here in Singapore I'm actually hearing these things second hand, ie from the church-goers who're hearing it from their ministers.
I've been thinking about doing a workshop or class on yoga for Christians, incorporating Christian aesthetics and materials, or at least trying to dialog with them on some level to try and alleviate their misconceptions.
However, I don't think the evangelicals or fundamentalists would be willing to go there, and in any case, I really don't see proseletizing or converting people as the function of a yoga teacher.
It's the potential students on the fence who I'm interested in reaching the most. The true-belivers won't come near yoga anyway. I don't wish to criticize or judge them as that's not really good for ourselves, either. I think best to just let them be.
| |
| | |
| Q Do you think it's OK for a Christian to practice Pilates techniques?
A. Pat Robertson
I see nothing wrong with doing Pilates. It has to do with stretching and very interesting exercises. Some of these yoga teachers come with their little chants and little bowls and towels and all of this stuff that goes along with yoga, including special spiritual breathing exercises. . . . but it doesn't seem to have any spiritual connotations.
I believe it was Ghandi who said:
First they laugh at you
Then they ignore you
Then they fight you
Then you win.
L | |
| | |
| Attached is Pat Robert's take on hinduism in 1995 that was mentione by Bay Guy.
July 1995
Using TV, Christian Pat Robertson Denounces Hinduism as "Demonic"
Evangelist Opposes Freedom of Religion, Says It's Time To Convert India and Wants to Keep Hinduism Out of US
By Valli J. Rajan, Pennsylvania
It's not that unusual for Pat Robertson's daily Christian TV show, the "700 Club," to portray other religions in less than a complimentary light. Jews, Muslims and occasionally Hindus are singled out for a scathing recounting of their spiritual errors. Still, I was shocked to see Robertson on his March 23th show label Hinduism as "demonic" and advocate keeping Hindus out of America. My concerns intensified when President Clinton later implicated hateful talk in the fatal Oklahoma City bombing.
Robertson was already a well-known figure in the conservative Christian community when his 1988 bid for the US presidency shot him into national attention and effectively anointed him leader of the Christian right wing. Talented and industrious, he is head or founder of numerous organizations, including a 1,400 student university. His political action group, the 1.4-million-member Christian Coalition, has decided influence in a new Republican-controlled Congress.
Christian evangelists regularly slander Hinduism with little impact beyond their own flock [see Hinduism Today, February, 1989]. But when a national figure like Robertson does it on a widely-watched TV program, that's different.
The March 23rd episode details Robertson's conversion of some Hindu people of Rajahmundry in Andhra Pradesh, India, to the Christian religion. In the course of the show, Robertson makes shameful, unChristian accusations against the Hindu faith, the world's oldest religion. When contacted, Mr. Robertson's office told us he was "unavailable for comment."
To begin, Robertson's experiences in Rajahmundry are described by a narrator. The scene is of a poverty-stricken people, bathing in the river at the head of which rests a statue of Lord Siva. Water is pouring out of Siva's head and a snake is wrapped around his head as well. Robertson and his son are found in the midst of the scene, observing and mocking the early morning prayers of Hindus. As they witness the scene, they make incorrect reference to the river as "Siva's sperm," and claim that the people "were supposed to wash away their sins in the sperm of the God."
Robertson goes on to characterize Hinduism as having evil tendencies toward random spiritual worship and polytheism. Mr. Robertson's son and fellow evangelist, Gordon, stated disparagingly, "Whenever [Hindus] feel any sort of inspiration, whether it's by a river or under a tree, on top of a hill, they figure that some God or spirit is responsible for that. And so they'll worship that tree, they'll worship that hill or they'll worship anything." What was even more regrettable was Robertson's assertion of some connection between idol worship and the poverty in India. Robertson does not deny his son's claim that "Wherever you find this type of idolatry, you'll find a grinding poverty. The land has been cursed."
But if the argument of poverty as the curse of India is not enough for the American audience of "The 700 Club," they next hear Hinduism boldly labeled "demonic." Robertson says, "Siva [is] the God of Destruction, and his consort, the Goddess of death [Kali]-that black, ugly statue there with all those fierce eyes." He then suggests that the evil tendencies of death and destruction can be found in those who worship the deities: "I mean these people are out to kill other human beings in the name of their God." They mention in support of this conclusion the Aum Shinrikyo sect in Japan. This eccentric Buddhist-based organization was likely responsible for subway gas attacks in Tokyo earlier this year. Their icons, unfortunately, included Siva-sure proof, goes the Robertson thinking, of demons at work.
"Although Hinduism admits that different beings and entities can perform what we might consider evil acts," corrects Dr. Arvind Sharma, Birks Professor of Comparative Religion at McGill University, Toronto, "there does not seem to be a single entity such as the Christian devil in Hinduism." And since there is no practice of evil or concept of the devil in Hinduism, "To call Hinduism demonic," concludes Dr. Sharma, "is really demonic."
By accusing Hinduism of being demonic, Robertson is merely reinforcing the age-old stereotype that has been placed on the Indian culture by the West. "That's been standard operating procedure missionaries have used ever since they invaded India in the 19th century," explains Dr. Gordon Melton, Director of the Institute for the Study of American Religions. "In approaching Eastern religions and African religions, it has been the stance of most conservative Christians that the deities of those religions are, in fact, personified demons. And that perspective goes back to the Jewish encounter with the Caananite culture a millennia ago as described in the Bible."
Dr. Kusumita Pedersen, Director for the Project on Human Rights and Religion, similarly observes that Robertson has employed "almost every negative image and cliché that has been used about Hinduism since the 18th century."
As the show unfolds, we finally we arrive at the real intention of Robertson's missionary trip to India: to convert Hindus to the Christian faith. A narrator describes the scene of the conversion in which thousands of Hindus were "set free from a lifetime of fear and demonic oppression. The scene was overwhelming." Actually, the scene is oddly over dramatic. Why would thousands of people in a split second throw away their entire way of life that has been passed down over the centuries, because of a brief speech given by a stranger from another country? Although Robertson mentions the naturally deep devotion of the Hindus, he apparently fails to appreciate that any religious preacher in India gets the same reception, whether Christian, Hindu, Jain, Sikh or Buddhist-though it does help to be white, American, famous and rich.
It is also apparent he was frustrated with the Hindu ability to just absorb one more God. "I preached to them the second commandment about idolatry. You know, `They shall hold no other Gods before me,' and number two, `You shall not fall down or make any idols of anything.' Many people accept Christ, but they still go with those processions down to those riverbanks. We followed along with the crowd and I said, `You've got to give that up.'"
Political Agenda
The program used common stereotypes of Hinduism (as well of as other prominent non-Christian religions in America) to create fear among the American people of non-Christian religions. What is the purpose behind those tactics?
Judging from Michael Little's, President of the Christian Broadcasting Network comments on the show-"There are so many opportunities for us to take programs which will reach the people of India," and "Help us carry the light to a nation in darkness"-it is obvious that one strategy of "The 700 Club" is to gain support and money. "Give us a hand on this [India]," pleads Robertson at one point, "because it's a big one." But that is just part of the plan.
Robertson's true thinking is revealed in his 1991 book The New World Order. That novel discloses a secret plan being followed by the present political leaders of the world. Robertson labels that plan the "New World Order," which he sees as the formation of a one world government, one police force, one judicial system, and one economic market. Robertson claims that in this "new world government no one could speak out against the beliefs of a Muslim, a Hindu, or an animist. What we know as the freedom of religion would be taken away, and Christians would be muzzled."
But Robertson has a vision of another future, one is which "God sweeps away the pretense of the satanic and man-made counterfeits and announces His New World Order, and His anointed leader, Jesus the Messiah."
Robertson stated in The New World Order: "The media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'"
Mr. David Cantor, Senior Research Analyst of the Anti-Defamation League, points out that such "religious tests for office are unconstitutional. It's not just a purely a religious statement. It's a political statement."
The Human Rights Issue
"In the discussion of human rights, there are different positions on the right to free speech or freedom of expression. The extreme position, that is sometimes called the `American position,' is total freedom of speech," explains Dr. Pedersen. "As Americans, we believe that even the most offensive and the most incendiary statements should be allowed in the name of freedom of expression, because once you start to legally restrict the freedom of speech, you are on a slippery slope of restricting all kinds of speech on different political or ideological ground."
Dr. Pedersen feels that such anti-Hindu statements may refer back to the 1920s, at a time when the Ku Klux Klan (a Christian white-supremacist group advocating violence against Black Americans) was on the rise, and the national belief was that all Americans must be Christians. During the 1920s, immigration laws prevented European immigrants from entering the United States. Eventually Europeans were allowed to immigrate and by 1965 Hindus were included in immigrant quotas.
However, in the 1990s, some feel that the multicultural immigration has caused a backlash in American society in the form of racial discrimination between various cultural groups. In the wake of such discontent, Peter Brimelow has recently written a book called Alien Nation which attacks multiculturalism and its negative effects on American society. Something must be done, Brimelow advocates, to prevent white people from becoming a minority in America.
"What Robertson is really saying is that Hindus shouldn't be allowed to come to the United States," evaluates Dr. Pedersen. "All of the Hindu engineers, doctors and computer experts who are living here should go home. This is a very big statement that he has made."
Even Christians are concerned with Robertson's manner of preaching Christianity. Sister Mary Elizabeth Moore, a Professor at Claremount's School of Theology, feels that Robertson may be overstepping his boundaries as a Christian. "I have been very distressed that Pat Robertson and others like him have used the gospel to preach condemnation of others, to judge harshly, to demonize people in other faiths and to demonize some Christians with whom they don't just happen to agree," expresses Sister Moore. "I think that's absolutely counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ."
Hinduism is not the only religion under Robertson's extremist attack; The New World Order is filled with anti-Semitism. However, Ms. Nancy Israel of the American Jewish Committee, notes that Robertson is slowly transforming. "He's being very careful now," observes Ms. Israel, who is from the Pittsburgh chapter of the American Jewish Committee. "Up until now he's been able to say what he wanted to say, and I think that those people who don't watch `The 700 Club' and don't read his materials have no idea what he's saying. He's been forced to back off because of this public spotlight and because he's decided to make the Christian Coalition a more mainstream organization."
Sri Anutama Das, Director of Communications at ISKCON feels that Robertson's actions should send a message to devotees of Hinduism. "It's unfortunate that such an influential religious and Christian leader as Pat Robertson demonstrates disdain for the world's oldest religious culture. As a Vaishnava, I see his emphasis in trying to spread Christianity in India, specifically among Hindus, as a reminder of the need for all of us to delve deeply into our own faith's traditions," notes Anutama, who is from ISKCON's branch in Rockland, Maryland. "As Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita, `Raja Vija, Raja Guyam.' This knowledge of the soul, of Sanatana Dharma, is the highest spiritual knowledge. However, if we do not educate ourselves and our children and abide by the teachings, materialists will find us easy targets for conversion."
What Should We Do?
It is true that if our Hindu faith is challenged, perhaps we will become more aware of its teachings, as suggested by Anutama. If that is so, we can view the "700 Club" attack on Hinduism as a blessing in disguise. "I would say that anytime we see the extreme of a religious community, we see warning signals that need to be taken seriously," agrees Sister Moore. "Those signals usually reveal something of the larger religion, something of the possibility of distortions that people need to worry about. These distortions can stir other people who have more whole views of the religion to express and live their faith more fully."
We should use this opportunity to profess and understand our Hindu faith more fully. We as Hindus need to respond to and erase Western stereotypes and hate speeches against our religion. There are many ways to accomplish that.
We can articulate our complaints through letters, phone calls and petitions to the government offices, such as the Justice Department Hate Crimes Division. The Indian government could express its concern, as it did for Hindus in South Africa for years. And we can bring such statements into the light of public discussion by filing complaints with the Anti-Defamation League.
The Anti-Defamation League was established in 1913 by B'nai B'rith, a Jewish service organization. The League and its parent organization defend human rights, promote intercultural relations, provide for the religious and cultural needs of Jewish college students, sponsor Jewish education among adults and youth groups and carry on a broad program of community service and welfare. They confer with governments and the UN on civil rights, immigration, abuses of freedom by totalitarian states, the position of Israel and problems affecting Jews throughout the world.
Dr. Pedersen feels that perhaps we can form our own protection league: "I recommend the formation of a Hindu anti-defamation program which will monitor these kinds of statements in the press and the media, and will gather accurate information and will speak out when something should be protested." In that way, perhaps the entire Hindu public will be constantly made aware of any false allegations made against our religion, and efforts to respond can be coordinated.
Dr. Jayaraman, executive director of Bharat Vidya Bhavan in New York, feels that the way to dispel Hindu stereotypes is to teach the common American man about our religion. "Indian philosophy should be taught methodically, either in the school system or by speakers prepared to go around the country to talk just like these missionaries," suggests Dr. Jayaraman. "In every city, in every state they should have such speakers, powerful speakers who can say with authority, `This is Hinduism. What you are saying is wrong.'" Dr. Jayaraman also suggests that small books discussing true Hindu philosophy be freely distributed to the public.
But the main way to break down anti-Hindu sentiments is by educating our children and ourselves more about Hinduism. Such understanding will place us in a better position to combat ignorant statements.
"Because Hindus take a generous view of other religions, they think that others will take a generous view of theirs," observes Dr. Sharma. "And even when others attack them, because of their basic nature, they don't take it to heart."
According to Dr. Pedersen, comments such as Robertson's, should be taken seriously. During the annual dinner given by Human Rights Watch, an international panel monitored by Peter Jennings discussed whether hate speech should be restricted or banned. "The next step after this truly disgusting defamation [of Robertson's] is what these human right activists on the panel call `the speech of instigation,'" recounted Dr. Pedersen. The `speech of instigation' is a build-up for murder and genocide. It happened in Rwanda. The press and media started to build up a rhetoric that so and so should be killed. After that went on for some months, so and so started getting killed. There is a line to be drawn somewhere on free speech, but we as Americans just don't know quite where yet."
Keeping that in mind, perhaps we should turn our thoughts to the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building. After the bombing, President Clinton spoke out against hate speeches, making a clear connection between hate speeches, propaganda and the bombing. The seeds of hate may blossom into the weeds of violence. Therefore, it is important that we take early and strong action against ignorant and hateful comments such as those made by Robertson. If we don't, we will one day face more than Mr. Robertson's hateful words.
Complaints may be made directly to the U.S. Department of Justice, Hate Crimes Division, Tenth and Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, D.C., 20530. Fax: 202-514-4371.
Letters can also be directed to Mr. Pat Robertson, CBN, 977 Centerville Turnpike, Virginia Beach, Virginia, 23463-0001.
Of Indian ancestry, correspondent Valli Guruswamy Julie Rajan is a prolific freelance writer living in Pennsylvania with her husband. She is writing a non-fiction book on gender-based double standards in Hindu society and is interested in the betterment of women and minorities.
Sidebar: What He Said About Hindus
Excerpts from the March 23rd broadcast of the 700 Club:
Robertson: "India is not what you normally think of anymore. In the last five years, it's burst into the 20th century with modern technology, capitalism and, especially, television. They're breaking free from the old, and they're moving into the Western culture. But what that leaves is a spiritual vacuum. And yet there seems, finally in India, an opening to the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout this whole land. There is a huge population of teen-agers. These people are not locked into the old ways. They're looking for something new and better."
Cohost: "You know, Pat, we've seen in other countries where there's a certain period of vulnerability, or spiritual vulnerability. Now's the time to use the media to talk to them about what their future could really be like."
Robertson: "They have thousands and thousands of earth stations picking up satellites. It's a window of opportunity [for Christian TV programs]. Of all of India's problems, one stands out from the rest. That problem is idol worship. It is said there are hundreds of millions of Hindu deities. All this has put a nation in bondage to spiritual forces that have deceived many for thousands of years."
Gordon Robertson (his son): "Wherever you find this type of idolatry, you'll find a grinding poverty. The land has been cursed. The Bible talks in terms of the land being cursed on behalf of what the inhabitants have done to it. You erect all these idols under every green tree, on top of every hill, you're going to curse your land. And the oppression, we see it in evidence."
CBN Reporter: "[At the religious services Robertson conducted in India] they came, by the hundreds, even thousands, to a makeshift altar to confess their faith in Christ and receive a touch from heaven, and be set free from a lifetime of fear and demonic oppression.
Robertson: "I [told] them to renounce idolatry, but many people accept Christ and still go with those processions [of Hindu deities]."
Cohost: "You said there's a connection between the New Age, as it is in America, and Hinduism."
Robertson: "It's the same thing. You see, the whole concept of Hindus is based on karma; that people have a karma attached to them when they are born, and they go through a cycle of life and they come back in the next world as something else. So the whole thought of reincarnation is karma-you come back as a cow, a pig, a goat, a dog, a snake or an untouchable. We're importing Hinduism into America. The whole thought of your karma, of meditation, of the fact that there's no end of life and there's this endless wheel of life, this is all Hinduism. Chanting too. Many of those chants are to Hindu Gods-Vishnu, Hare Krishna. The origin of it is all demonic. We can't let that stuff come into America. We've got the best defense, if you will-a good offense."
Sidebar: The Robertson Empire
The promotional literature provided Hinduism Today by the Robertson ministries details the extensive empire Pat Robertson has developed over 25 years of ministry. It is really an admirable accomplishment, tarnished only by the kind of religious bigotry demonstrated in the March 23rd program [see sidebar left]. Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network is the world's largest television ministry, with programs airing across the United States and in 70 countries. He also has interests in non-religious family-oriented television, specifically the cable Family Channel. In 1978 he founded the Operation Blessing International Relief and Development Corporation which since 1978 has distributed aid worth US$440 million to 114 million people in 72 countries. He's written nine books, one of which was a best seller and number one religious book in America in 1984. In 1992 Robertson was selected by Newsweek magazine as one of America's "100 Cultural Elite." Robertson also founded the American Center for Law and Justice to pursue a Christian agenda in the courts by providing free legal advice and representation in important precedent-setting cases. His Regent University [photo above] is an accredited graduate school offering degrees in communication, education, counseling, business, divinity, public policy and law.
Robertson ventured out of the strictly religious field in 1987 when he resigned his ordination as a Southern Baptist minister to run for president of the United States. As part of this effort, the Christian Coalition was formed, a "national grassroots citizen action organization" to work for "pro-family legislation and family-friendly public policy on national, state and local levels." Both are represented on the World Wide Web: Robertson at http://the700 club.org//cbn/cbn.html and The Coalition at http://cc.org. Robertson and the Coalition are probably the single most effective Christian voice in American politics today, as demonstrated by their recent demands to Congress for a "Contract with the American Family," including "voluntary [ie, Christian] prayer in public schools"-something presently forbidden by law. One reaction to this contract came from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "It's a sad day in American politics when a TV preacher's political front group dictates the agenda for the United States Congress," said Barry Lynn, the organization's executive director. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
I found Robertson's comments so offensive that I didn't want
to post even excerpt...the only way I can see him as other than
truly malicious is to assume that his stuff comes come from a deep
and unreflective ignorance...and even that is hard for me.
There's a bumper sticker I saw once: Fundamentalism Stops a Thinking Mind.
I wonder, however, whether fundamentalism is in fact the face of evil. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | I don't know Bay Guy I think these type of people are just in plain denial....of LIFE!! The Pat Roberts of the world like to go around preaching and spouting off, but do they actually teach anything to their flock?? I say NO! After being brought up in that Christian environment, when I got older I was clueless as to how life was and what my responsibility was in this world was and my part in it. To comment about karma and the wheel of life so casually and make lite of it is simple ignorance - even if you don't believe in karma, there are other ways of getting your point across, problem is these people don't have an answer, they have no point. This religion is so scary to me because it has this dreary end - either heaven or hell depending on which one God thinks you should be in and you don't have a way of measuring yourself because they don't have many tools to practice their faith with and did you know you are a sinner?? What is with that?? I mean like, do these people ever think to ask the most important questions like Who am I? How did I get here?? I think its just a way of keeping them controlled and to not have any resposibility for their negative bahaviors and actions that keep them in that state of Samasara - to me that is a strong indication of pure EVIL if there is such a thing. Talk about destruction of the planet....how many churches are here in the US??? and how many trees and forest did they chop down for their parking lots. Thank you Hot Yogi for posting that, I had no idea about these things as I try to stay clear of politics. I read some things in Hinduism today but did not know that it was that crazy. I knew about the situation in India and the conversions that were taking place with young children - I found it to be so heartbreaking because they were being used and bribed with modern conveniences. Don't you remember how in America they always lured children in with candy and toys. At least now I know what my family thinks when they're around me and my husband. My Father tried to convert me as child and gave up....I don't think he would try again, but I'm sure he has me in his prayer box, which is good, I need all I can get and in Hindu culture, your parents are the God's! That is the BEST type of Blessing anyone can receive - even if they don't have a clue, I just try to remain neutral so that I don't upset my Father in a bad way, which I feel is real important when dealing with this delicate situation of family..cause that's karma too and I love my parents! Wonder what Pat R. would think about that? Having said all that....Being a Hindu, the interesting thing of all is that my Christian Father really has never expressed anything negative towards me and sometimes I think he really has some kind of deep respect towards my NON-Violent attitude. How can anyone really argue with the HH Dalai Lama - I always use him for a reference when I talk about things with my Dad. Like during our conversations, we basically agree on the important issues about family life and moral issues. When he starts to talk about negative things, I always revert the conversation back to a positive tone and sometimes I think it diffuses him and he sees my perspective and likes my viewpoint because we can find the mutual ground which is everyone really would like to have peace and be in a peaceful world without suffering. So, as Ghandi would say, "be the change you want the world to be". I like to say that if we continue to set an example and just be ourselves, eventually the world will take notice and hatred and violence cannot win - even though it looks hopeless, these kinds of people will f**k up somehow they always do:~) even GWB's days a comin` Soo, how this post can relate to yoga and christianity?? I think it can work, but if you want to be successful at it, you have to close one eye and have alot of understanding about Christianity itself and how you can apply Yoga to it. Not saying Close one eye and live a lie, just close one eye and find the positive - which is extremely challenging. You could always play a nice version of "Amazing Grace" during Savasana - wonder how Bruce would like that, LOL!! Actually, I love that song. I played Cecilia's version at my Mother's funeral - I used a Unity minister to perform the service....my sister loved it but made fun of the whales in the background:~) Her Christian family loved the service and contacted the minister later to get the CD - they didn't know I selected it:~)
Edited by Cyndi 2005-03-01 4:48 PM
| |
| | |
| Cyndi wrote: I don't know Bay Guy I think these type of people are just in plain denial....of LIFE!!
I agree with this sentiment. I think a lot of the 'conservative' viewpoint is to narrow, exclude, or deny what seems to me to be natural biological variation and diversity, in favor of some idealized "right" kind of life/living. (And it's truly incongruous to me, that these same people that worship omnipotent, eternal, limitless God like to place restrictions on what God's world and creatures should be like.) As a Christian, I don't see why yoga should be off-limits in any way, and I think any idea that it should be is silly. But then, I'm also gay, and there's certainly plenty of Christians that don't think I should be practicing Christianity either. But there are also many, many Christians that I'm sure don't have the slightest problem with yoga (or gay Christians). It's just that, like there are all kinds of people, there are also all kinds of Christians (over 900 varieties of Protestantism alone); and those that want narrow interpretations would probably deny that, and say there's just one kind, the 'right' kind, whatever that is.
I do hope it's ok to be gay and practice yoga?! | |
| | |
| I am a hindu who belives in bible teachings and Christ teachings. Pat Robertson statement are anti christians as Christ said, " Judge not lest you be judged" Christ was about love and he tought yoga to his direct desciples. He procaimed, : Kingdome of God is within you.
Yoga is the science to find the kingdome of God. There are many references to yoga in new Gospel but they are not understoood.
Some statement that refer to yoga are
" When thy Eye is single, your body will be full of light" ( talks about third eye)
" Be still and you will know that you are God"
Son of God is the name given to self realized Yogi who has become one with God. Jesus said that he is not the only son of God but he gave power to all to become son of God. Anyone who follows yoga teachings can become one with christ and claim to be son of God or self realized.
The four wise men who came at birth of jesus were from India and they knew by yoga that jesus was born. Pat robertson can not chagne bible to say that the four wise men came from west. The fact that wise men predate Christ in east, illustrates that God knowledge was already in East before Christ was sent to west.
If you read christ teachings( separate it from other writings, you will not find contradiction with hindu dharma). In fact Christ, lived in India from age 13 to 30. There is no mention of christ during this age in bible but it is mentioned in Kashmir area in buddhist books about ISA.
Christians who are against christ techings( of love) are against christ himself. We need to remember that hindus also forgot their true religion of yoga and got lost in outward superstitions. Shiva is yogi with third eye open, his snakes represent lust and Shiva had control over body temptations( lust) and those who do not know what snakes represent, will name them demon. I think hindu should read their religion symbols signifcance so they know What Shiva means and what Brhama means.
I specially like Shiva because he is true Yogi. Ganga reprsents the mother nature and Yogi can understand how nature comes from heaven to earth. That is why Ganga is on Shiva's head. He also said to burn Kama as Yogi burns his sexual desires in yoga and meditations.
Christ was teaching meditation when he stated kingdome of God is within you. Now, lookaround and see how many christians go within to find kingdome of God. Trying to convert people will not lead to kingdome of God as it is not out there but within. Those who try to find God outside will not find the kingdome of God.
Yoga and meditation is thus one with Christ teachings.( there is full book on this subject). Christians can do yoga and yes gays and lesbians too. Christ will not judge any person with their sexual orientation.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | MichaelJ - 2005-03-03 3:55 PM
I do hope it's ok to be gay and practice yoga?!
If it isn't, a lot of my friends are going to Hell. 
I was really amused by a photo that ran in the NY Times
after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. It showed
two men, one white and the other black, being married
by a woman priest. I can only imagine the reaction of
the 700 Club to that one!
 | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | nathss - 2005-03-03 5:26 PM
Christians who are against christ techings( of love) are against christ himself. We need to remember that hindus also forgot their true religion of yoga and got lost in outward superstitions. Shiva is yogi with third eye open, his snakes represent lust and Shiva had control over body temptations( lust) and those who do not know what snakes represent, will name them demon. I think hindu should read their religion symbols signifcance so they know What Shiva means and what Brhama means.
I specially like Shiva because he is true Yogi. Ganga reprsents the mother nature and Yogi can understand how nature comes from heaven to earth. That is why Ganga is on Shiva's head. He also said to burn Kama as Yogi burns his sexual desires in yoga and meditations.
Christ was teaching meditation when he stated kingdome of God is within you. Now, lookaround and see how many christians go within to find kingdome of God. Trying to convert people will not lead to kingdome of God as it is not out there but within. Those who try to find God outside will not find the kingdome of God.
Yoga and meditation is thus one with Christ teachings.( there is full book on this subject). Christians can do yoga and yes gays and lesbians too. Christ will not judge any person with their sexual orientation.
Nathss ---
Thank you for posting this. I agree with all of it.
Bay Guy
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Nathss, Thanks for sharing that! As an American brought up in a Christian homelife, your story about Jesus Christ is NOT the same one I heard when I was a child....if I did, I would have been in heaven hearing about Indians and Tibetans and how they observed Jesus' enlightenment like Buddha and so on. Can you imagine the story books for children? Most Christians in the US deleted the India and Tibet part because they needed to have control over their church members. Did you ever see the movie "Stigmata". They leave so much out because they don't want people to think for themselves and they are afraid of losing their jobs. I'm not for gay or nor against it. I am so neutral because I really don't understand it and have never met that many gay people. How can I judge something that I don't really know about and understand. We are all human and we have to respect each other. The gays that I did know seem to be more open minded and I think that is what is so important in our world today. I did see a movie this summer called "Angels in America" - I loved it and thought that it was funny at the local Ingles Market here in the Bible belt, they almost put x rated stickers on it and told everyone is was elicit and adult material....like watching T.V. these days was worse than this movie, LOL!! So, who cares if your gay and doing yoga...open up a gay yoga studio, why not? Can I come too? | |
| | |
| Michael J - As a Christian, I don't see why yoga should be off-limits in any way, and I think any idea that it should be is silly. But then, I'm also gay, and there's certainly plenty of Christians that don't think I should be practicing Christianity either. But there are also many, many Christians that I'm sure don't have the slightest problem with yoga (or gay Christians).
Yes! Let us not forget there are Liberal Chirstians out there too! I don't see anything wrong with Christians practicing yoga, being gay, listening to metal, reading Harry Potter, or watching Lord of the Rings! Some of the Pat Robertson's out there can really give the *good Christians* a bad name. I can't see a "real" Christian (for lack of a better term) putting down anyone's religion or putting anyone down for x, y or z period.
The things Pat Robertson is quoted saying are SHoCKiNG!  I hope that he doesn't taint the views of people leading them to believe all Christians are like that (ignorant and disrespectful of other religions, etc.).
| |
| | |
| P.s.
Great post nathss!
Cyndi -
I'm not for gay or nor against it. I am so neutral because I really don't understand it and have never met that many gay people. How can I judge something that I don't really know about and understand. We are all human and we have to respect each other.
I'm not gay, but I have a gay relative, so I always defend her and her rights. I wish everyone would have your open mind! You stated it very well when you said "How can I judge something that I don't really know about and understand." Too bad more people do not think that way.
Edited by Dragon 2005-03-03 11:16 PM
| |
| | |
| Yall are great! Thanks for all the friendly posts. Maybe someday I will open a gay yoga studio! How funny. We could put on Village People signing YMCA when we do ardha chandrasana with padahastasana.
Cyndi I'd love to meet you someday, you sound very cool.
I would like to ask, what is this about Jesus living in India? I've never heard of this. I thought there was no record of his life prior to his ministries, ie, as told in the gospels. | |
| | |
| "In the language of the early Christians the mysteries were those religious teachings that were carefully guarded from the knowledge of the profane. An example is the Secret Gospel of Mark, which was preserved from profane view in Alexandria, and is now known only through chance references in a letter of Clement of Alexandria. The "sayings" Gospel of Thomas expresses mysteries that were confided by Jesus to Thomas alone, according to the manuscript, and the traditions of early Christian Gnosticism were based on esoteric information available only to disciples. Though these traditions were marginalized by mainstream Pauline Christianity and eventually declared "heretical", it has been suggested that Christianity had its origin in a mystery of initiates. According to this view, Christianity began as a Jewish adaptation of Greek mystery religion, and that Paul drew organized Christianity in another, more public, Hellenized direction, ultimately more acceptable to mainstream Roman culture."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_religion | |
| | |
| MichaelJ wrote
"would like to ask, what is this about Jesus living in India? I've never heard of this. I thought there was no record of his life prior to his ministries, ie, as told in the gospels"
Jesus lived in India is written by Holger Kersten.
www.holgerkersten.com
He referred Nicolai Notovitch , a Russian Historian who went to Kashmir and saw Buddhist book about Jesus.
Shambhu Nath
| |
| | |
| http://www.spinninglobe.net/jesusinindia.htm
This link has more details about Jesus lived in India.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Hey Michael, I love the Village People song "YMCA". I grew up with that song and my kids like it too:~) I can just see myself doing Ardha Chandrasana with a twist, LOL!! Very funny. Wonder if it will get me to stretch more so I can look like a Japenese Ham Sandwich instead of a Burger that's sliding off the lettuce<VBG> Let us know when you get that studio started up. Take care | |
| | |
| Golly, some of the posters sound rather like Pat in drag :-). Not that drag is a bad thing, unless of course, it is dressing up as Pat..... ok, either you get it or you don't :-).
Pat does not represent either mainstream Christianity or what Xtns call fundamentalist. Truth is, few nonXtns understand what a fundamentalist is, because the media got started confusing "fundamentalist" with "jerk." Ah well, the media own the language.
I am a Xtn theologian of one of the olde-tyme schools, so I can speak pretty accurately about matters Xtn.
I know several Xtns (& myself) who practice various styles or forms of yoga. To the extent that it can be practiced aside from Budhism, asana has no more religious significance than running. Likewise, pranayama.
That which is called yama is understood in a different way by the Xtn, although there is certainly nothing wrong with truthfulness, nonstealing, noncoveting, and such. Concentration and meditation are wonderful things, but of course there are more & less beneficial things to concentrate & meditate on, in Budhism as well as in Xtniaty.
Samadhi makes a kind of sense to Xtn mystics, but this is difficult to explain.
There irreconcilable differences between Xtniaty and all other religions, and any attempt to shoehorn Jesus or His teachings into a Budhist (or any other religion) mold will fail miserably. What Xtns must avoid while practicing yoga is the worship of anything except the Father. Since worship is primarily a matter of intention (in yogic terms :-), not outward actions, this is not difficult to achieve.
So, the upshot of this long & rambling post is that (1) Pat is a nutcase, and (2) yes, Xtns can do asana & pranayama, but may decide to pass on other aspect of yoga.
Cheers...............Dale (aka Downdawg)
Edited by elson 2005-03-13 3:28 AM
| |
| | |
| Thanks elson for that sensible and well reasoned post. I'm gonna repost my original post from the meditation forum for those who might've missed the beginning of the discussion, and I wonder if you care to comment. My point was not to criticize anyone, but rather to emphasise the common ground, because the question comes up so frequently here in Singapore and also on the forum.
Also, can you please explain the meaning of fundamentalist, and perhaps evangelical? Would like to get the terms straight.
Thanks
Sivaram
sivaram 2005-02-23 12:04 PM
Many Christians have doubts about trying yoga because they've been told it's bad by thier mentors (pastors, ministers, preachers...). I believe it's mainly the fundamentalists and evangelicals that object the most. Some of what they say is true, at least in terms of the goals and methods, but often their understanding is incomplete. They would also most likely take the position that Christianity is the only route to divine salvation, and that any other kind of apparently religious practices are incompatible.
Well, okay, who is to argue with them, if that is what they think, fine. No one is saying that yoga is for everyone. It's not. Yoga is for those who feel attracted to it's philosophy, aims and methods. There is no question of trying to convert anyone.
However, it's also a mistake to say that yoga is incompatible with other religious contexts outside Hinduism. Usually the problem is that no distinction is made between the different paths of yoga:
Karma, Bhakti, Raja (includes meditation and Hatha) and Jnana yogas. In the context of this discussion, Bhakti or devotion is the most important, because Christian doctrine seems to insist that Jesus is the one and only correct object of worship and devotion, and any other is unacceptable. How unfortuate for all the teeming billions who never heard of Jesus or were born in non-Christian countries.
In yoga, devotion is an important aspect of the overall set of practices. However, one may hold as one's object of worship and devotion any one of the "faces of God" to which one feels most attracted, with which there is the most identification. Therefore if one wishes to project one's devotion toward Jesus, then that is perfectly acceptable. The Absolute, or Supreme, is known as Brahaman, and is understood to be the source of all, but unknowable until one reaches the highest stage in the progression of practice, which culminates in Jnana yoga, the path of philosophical inquiry.
Because we exist on a dulaistic plane, people require something to which they can attach and direct their mental and sense faculties, a divine symbol if you will, to lead the aspirant in the direction of the Absolute. This is the meaning and purpose of the various deities, who are not mistaken for the ultimate One, but are merely faces of God we can relate to, whose virtues we aspire to, whose qualities help us to attain the final goal. They are rather like archetypes, psychic companions and protectors on the spiritual journey.
Therefore one can practice yoga and remain Christian, perhaps in the truest sense. Personally, I feel that I never understood Christinity properly until I studied and trained in yoga. All religions have exoteric or outer and esoteric or inner meanings and traditions. Judaism and Christianity no less than Islam and Hinduism. The different aspects or paths are for people who are at differents stages of their personal spiritual development. As a previous poster mentioned, Christianity has it's own meditation and ascetic traditions. However, one can also practice Hatha yoga with Christ as one's Ishta Devata, and even use a favorite Christian phrase, prayer or saying as one's mantra if practicing japa meditation. Study a little more, look into the yamas and niyamas, and you'll see there are many similarities and much common ground between all the major religions and yoga.
Fundamentalists of all stripes tend to emphasise the differences and proclaim their paths as the exclusive right way, and the others as false. That is simply the nature of religion as a political program, not as a spiritual program, in a dualistic world.
Yoga says, "the paths are many but the truth is one." The bottom line is, do what you feel like doing, as long as it helps you move toward love, truth, wisdom and justice.
Remember there are no monolithic religious entities. Christians cannot all agree as to the difinitive interpretation of Jesus' teachings. Same for the other religions. Witness the many divisions and sects in the major world religions, and all the minor religions. Philosophy and religion are really in constant historical flux. It is only the mystical strands in all faiths which assert the common threads among them, and who seek to understand and aid each other, to build bridges, not walls.
Edited by sivaram 2005-03-13 6:42 AM
| |
| | |
| This statement does not appear in the Bible: " Be still and you will know that you are God"
Sorry, that's a zip, zilch, nada. It's not in the text.
As for judging, the Lord Jesus was talking about judging PEOPLE. He was not saying we should not judge certain ideas as false or ridiculous, or untrue. We as sinners are condemnable before God when we judge that any person cannot be saved, cannot find grace, is completely removed from the hope of mercy from God. Look at the text: the Lord is telling His listeners not to call a man a graceless wretch, or they will put themselves in danger of being treated as a graceless wretch. He's NOT saying that we shouldn't reject bad ideas as bad ideas. In point of fact, the Lord Jesus often rebuked his followers for swallowing very bad ideas without applying the Scripture to those ideas to measure their actual worth.
To give you the short answer, of course a Christian can practice yoga. A Christian practices yoga like any other person practices yoga. You pick up the mat and go to the yoga school and start practicing yoga: Downward dog, upward dog, plank pose, etc.
But a Christian cannot believe what some religions from India teach and remain a Christian. Christianity is defined as a belief in the trinity, exclusively. It's defined as a belief in the inherent sinfulness of man; thus biblical Christianity rejects the idea that enlightenment comes from within. The first successful "Christian" sect in modern history to depart from this doctrine were the Quakers and the Inner Light groups, but they rejected the authority of Scripture. They had to. Any group that makes the Bible a sole authority recognizes that the text is quite unified in depicting that man is inherently sinful and that enlightenment can come only from God.
Now you may not like this, and you may argue it, and certainly there are groups that use the name Christian but do not recognize the Bible as the sole authority in their religious practice. Fine.
But if you define Christianity as any religious group that academically and theologically studies that Bible as its authoritative Scripture of faith and practice, then yes they can go through the postures of yoga, but they would reject many of the religious ideas that come along in the luggage with some yoga teachers.
Jeri | |
| | |
| jeriwho - 2005-03-27 8:46 PM
But a Christian cannot believe what some religions from India teach and remain a Christian. Christianity is defined as a belief in the trinity, exclusively. It's defined as a belief in the inherent sinfulness of man; thus biblical Christianity rejects the idea that enlightenment comes from within.
Would this be a fundamentalist or evangelical POV?
Yoga also teaches that 'enlightenment' (Samadhi) comes through God's grace. Going within is but one avenue to that. There are others, including some that closely resemble Christian practices, but which are of course much older.
I think it's fair to say that Yoga views man as inherintly spiritual, but ignorant or blind to this, not as inherintly sinful. We're actually inherently pure, but mistaken in identifying with the limited, phenomenal world, & therefore subject to all it's imperfections, limitations, dissatisfactions, etc....
We're only condemned by our own actions and failures of recongnition, & must reap their inevitable results. We always have the choice to rise above.
But if you define Christianity as any religious group that academically and theologically studies that Bible as its authoritative Scripture of faith and practice, then yes they can go through the postures of yoga, but they would reject many of the religious ideas that come along in the luggage with some yoga teachers.
The definition of Christianaity is one of those sticky issues Christians have famously quarrelled over for the past 2005 years (give or take). Look it up on the net and you'll see literally hundreds of groups and sub-groups all differing on the subject. BTW, the poses are not yoga proper, but a common entry point.
Yoga proper refers to meditation (again, having many avenues), something Christians do also. Of course Christians can do asanas, but the question comes up more frequently in regards to meditation or general spirituality, which are the essence of yoga, not merely the baggage of some teachers as you put it. Yoga doesn't assert the exclusivity of God to any one path, but rather that all paths lead to the One (God), and Jesus is considered a suitable figure of devotion. Hence no contradiction.
It seems to me that the more you look at it, the less differences there really are, or in any event the fewer there really need to be. Understanding (and maybe even celebrating) the similarities between one's religion and others shouldn't be frowned upon. There's more common ground that many realize.
Edited by sivaram 2005-03-26 8:38 AM
| |
| | |
| >>>>It's defined as a belief in the inherent sinfulness of man; thus biblical Christianity rejects the idea that enlightenment comes from within.<<<<
>>Would this be a fundamentalist or evangelical POV?<<
It's the historic Protestant point of view, the Reformation point of view, the Pauline point of view, and the basis for the New Testament books of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I&II Corinthians and probably all the others, though these make express reference to it.
When the Lord Jesus asked the doubters if it was more difficult to say "rise and walk" to a lame man or "Your sins are forgiven", He was alluding to the basic doctrine of man's sinfulness and innate inability to approach God. And His audience understood and agreed with this doctrine. They all held the viewpoint that man is born in sin, with a sinful nature. That's why they were stunned when He expressly said that He had the authority to forgive sins (because they assumed him to be merely a man and therefore a sinner) and then He proved His Godhood by saying to the lame man "Take up your bed and walk" and the lame man did so. The Lord Jesus expressly linked His power to heal with His authority and divine nature.
Any Christian sect that relies upon the Bible as the authoritative text holds this view. That includes Evangelicals but also any historic Protestant statement of faith. The Westminster Confession, for instance, expresses it very clearly.
Christian sects have quarreled over the definition of Christianity, but that doesn;t mean there is no definition. Obviously, the religion based on Christ has to go back to Christ.
But it's true: there are people who call themselves Christians who deny the godhood of Christ, the reality of the Resurrection, etc. I'm sure they would run after yoga just like they run after evey other fad that whispers "spirituality" to them.
But those Christians that define Christianity by what the Bible teaches would reject self enlightenment and any form of diety that is not expressly the trinity.
At the same time, there is nothing in assuming certain postures that pays homage to other gods or notions of self enlightenment. I use yoga to stretch my back and hamstrings. It's very effective. But my faith and all my expectations rest on Christ and Christ alone. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | jeriwho - 2005-03-26 10:15 AM
>>>>It's defined as a belief in the inherent sinfulness of man; thus biblical Christianity rejects the idea that enlightenment comes from within.<<<<
>>Would this be a fundamentalist or evangelical POV?<<
It's the historic Protestant point of view, the Reformation point of view, the Pauline point of view, and the basis for the New Testament books of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I&II Corinthians and probably all the others, though these make express reference to it.
Any Christian sect that relies upon the Bible as the authoritative text holds this view. That includes Evangelicals but also any historic Protestant statement of faith. The Westminster Confession, for instance, expresses it very clearly.
Christian sects have quarreled over the definition of Christianity, but that doesn;t mean there is no definition. Obviously, the religion based on Christ has to go back to Christ.
But it's true: there are people who call themselves Christians who deny the godhood of Christ, the reality of the Resurrection, etc. I'm sure they would run after yoga just like they run after evey other fad that whispers "spirituality" to them.
But those Christians that define Christianity by what the Bible teaches would reject self enlightenment and any form of diety that is not expressly the trinity.
.
I don't like to argue about matters of faith, and I certainly respect your particular interpretation
of Christianity, which is shared among many other christians. But...I will note the following:
* There are a number of other Christian texts that did not make it into today's Bible.
These include accounts of the life of Jesus Christ that were written within 200 years of
his time on Earth. I'm not qualified to give a scholarly evaluation of those texts, but my
understanding is that they are of equal historical significance to other parts of the
New Testament. These documents include, but are not limited to, the Dead Sea Scrolls
and the so-called Gnostic Gospels.
* The texts that were included/excluded in today's Bible were more or less finalized
by various European bishops somewhere around 400 AD, long after the time of Christ.
These bishops chose not to include some of the above texts (which they had and which
were in use at the time) for various reasons that scholars have debated over the years.
* Some of the texts that were excluded include teachings attributed to Christ that do not
hinge on the notion of "original sin", to the best of my memory.
* And, here I will strain my memory a bit more, I believe that there are Christian
religions today that do not follow the notion of sin and salvation as outlined in the
above posts.
I really don't want to debate the correct interpretation of Christianity, which I believe is
a personal matter. I simply point these things out to show that there's a basis for people
to follow Christ's great teachings without accepting a strict bibical interpretation.
The bible as we use it today was written and actively filtered by men based upon their
particular interpretation of Christianity...to me, this implies that other interpretations are
possible.
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-03-26 11:32 AM
| |
| | |
| I repsect what you have to say, Bay Guy. I am also straining to recall, but I believe that any Eastern Christian sect would reject the totality of total depravity. But then, so would Roman Catholicism. I don't think their doctrine favors self enlightenment, so much as it emphasizes a significant role of the church and sacraments as a necessary part of spiritual growth.
In the 1500's, when the *the* church (ie, the papacy) was corrupt, it was challenged by a new scholarship. Religious scholars from all Romance language countries independently studied the Bible text for what it actually said. Jon Wycliffe had actually made his start in England in the late 1300's but was just about unknown in other countries, and Jon Hus had also created a sort of mini-Reformation in Bohemia (now Austria-Hungary) before Luther nailed his theses to the door in the 1500's. The major players, Martin Luther in Germany, John Calvin in France and Geneva, Ulrich Zwingli in Switzerland, and the Oxford Martyrs in England (William Tyndale and Matthew Coverdale; Hugh Latimer as well. These would be three of the best known men), studied out the text of the accepted Bible and they all reached pretty much the same conclusions about the bondage of the will, the depravity of man, justification by faith, the authority of the Bible, and the sovereign Grace of God.
Yes, they limited authoritative Scripture to just that text. As they became more acquainted with each other, they realized that they were in consensus on every major doctrine, and so they agreed that in spite of certain differences like mode of baptism, method of the Lord's supper, and system of church government infrastructure, they were in unity on the essentials of Christian faith. One result of their consensus was the Westminster Confession of Faith. But this group of Bible scholars formed the basis of historic Protestant belief. That's what I am referring to. Of course, many Evangelicals today trace their doctrine back to the Protestant consensus and even the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Christians who hold to these essentials would reject any religion of self-enlightenment or any religion that excludes or denies the trinity.
So if you ask, Can a Christian practice yoga, you have to define "Christian," and you have to define "yoga." Anybody, as far as I can see, can assume the postures with no alteration of their doctrinal beliefs. But if you include beliefs in self enlightenment with yoga or define yoga as a form of spiritual self enlightenment, then no, a Christian defined by the historic Protestant definition would not swallow it. We believe that every man is sinful and that he cannot be enlightened from within. We are completely dependent upon God, through the office of Christ our High Priest, to declare us justified before God and to act in us to sanctify us and cause us to grow in faith in Him. There is no other salvation, and there is no other Atonement.
However, I have no fear of what others believe that yoga does for them. I use yoga as a great means to stretch my back and hamstrings, and I rest my faith on Christ. So again, if you dfine yoga as a series of postures, it shouldn't violate anybody's conscience.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | jeriwho - 2005-03-26 2:31 PM
So if you ask, Can a Christian practice yoga, you have to define "Christian," and you have to define "yoga." Anybody, as far as I can see, can assume the postures with no alteration of their doctrinal beliefs. But if you include beliefs in self enlightenment with yoga or define yoga as a form of spiritual self enlightenment, then no, a Christian defined by the historic Protestant definition would not swallow it. We believe that every man is sinful and that he cannot be enlightened from within. We are completely dependent upon God, through the office of Christ our High Priest, to declare us justified before God and to act in us to sanctify us and cause us to grow in faith in Him. There is no other salvation, and there is no other Atonement.
Thanks, Jeri. That's an interesting line of thought. As long as you are describing the
structure of ideas as your particular set of beliefs (shared with other of your faith, of course),
there's nothing here to disagree with. As you noted somewhere in your previous posts,
other christians don't follow the bible quite so strictly, even if they have their roots
in protestant thought.
Devotion to god is one of the elements of conduct prescribed in the sutras (II-45, I think),
so I'm not sure that it is quite accurate to think of yoga as a path to "self" enlightenment.
In fact, as I think about that more, many people I know who pratice yoga seriously are doing
it as a path to union with god. Very different than the christian path (certainly as you have
defined it), but hardly something man does without god. | |
| | |
| Well, first I have to correct a previous statement. A reader wrote to remind me that Bohemia became part of the Czech Republic, not Austrio-Hungary, though it may have been a part of the Austrio Hungary empire for a while.
Next, your comment, Bay Guy, raises a question from me. Yoga itself, like the term "Christian" is a large and diverse group of beliefs, right? Isn't there significant diversity within "yoga"?
Jeri | |
| | |
| Dear Jeri:
I do not know whether you mind my intrusion. However, I want to give input: Yoga is NOT a system of belief. Yoga is a perfected science and can be tried out by any person of any belief/faith. Also, being a science it can not be violated or even avoided. That means, a person wishing to reach the Realization has to tread the path of Yoga, no matter what.
Now, there is a diversity in Yoga only in the means of practices. The diversity is most when the practice is at a gross level, when it goes subtler, the diversity reduces, then it reaches the bliss where the diversity is zero, then at the ego level there is NO diversity except assuming one id different from the God. In Samadhi, the entire diversity disappears.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2005-03-26 9:13 PM
That means, a person wishing to reach the Realization has to tread the path of Yoga, no matter what.
Hmm, well, we'll see.
--Jeri | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | jeriwho - 2005-03-26 8:11 PM
Next, your comment, Bay Guy, raises a question from me. Yoga itself, like the term "Christian" is a large and diverse group of beliefs, right? Isn't there significant diversity within "yoga"?
Jeri
I will defer to Brother Neel's answer to the question of diversity. He is wiser than I am, and I
find that what he wrote seems very accurate.
On Neel's statement about the necessity of treading the path of yoga, I find it interesting
to compare Christ's statements about how people should treat one another and conduct
themselves to the similar prescriptions in the Yoga Sutras. We had a substantial discussion
of this several months ago (someplace in the general meditation forum). To my eye, the
Yamas (of the Sutras) can be found in Red Letter text in the book of Luke and elsewhere
in the New Testament. On these fundamental issues, there is no difference.
Bay Guy
| |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2005-03-26 10:02 PM
On Neel's statement about the necessity of treading the path of yoga, I find it interesting
to compare Christ's statements about how people should treat one another and conduct
themselves to the similar prescriptions in the Yoga Sutras.
It's been pointed out for centuries that the morality Christ taught is almost universal. It was certainly not at all new to Judaism. His teachings on caring for others, forgiving others, and trusting God are all found in abundance in the Old Testament and have their counterparts in most major religions. How to acquire the power to live that way and consistently practice such goodness is where the major religions may split off from each other. | |
| | |
| If you go back to the foundation of any organized faith in this world, you'll find the tenants are the same. Respect, honesty, patience, non-greediness, and doing the right thing (not the easy thing!).
I always wonder at the question of Christians Practicing yoga. Christ didn't refuse people of other faiths. In his time all there were were people of other faiths! He said that he is the way, but he didn't reject and condemn those that were NOT of his way. He offered patience, confidence that they would come to him in their own time. Ah well.
Happy Easter for those of you who practice Christianity!
| |
| | |
| Dear Jeri:
I am little confused at what you wrote in the previous post. I thought you restated exactly what Brother Bay Guy wrote. Let me copy if below. Now, my additio is this: Yes, that is exactly what Patanjali wrote. Now, Patanjali is distillation of Advaita Vedanta. See previous many posts regarding this. Now, as for time frame: Jesus Christ is around 0 A.D or 0 B.C. Patanjali is around 250 B.C. Buddha is 300 B.C. Mahabharata 3200 B.C. And, Vedas are more than 10000 years B.C. Neel Kulkarni www.authenticyoga.org
Bay Guy - 2005-03-26 10:02 PM
On Neel's statement about the necessity of treading the path of yoga, I find it interesting
to compare Christ's statements about how people should treat one another and conduct
themselves to the similar prescriptions in the Yoga Sutras.
Jeri: to above
It's been pointed out for centuries that the morality Christ taught is almost universal. It was certainly not at all new to Judaism. His teachings on caring for others, forgiving others, and trusting God are all found in abundance in the Old Testament and have their counterparts in most major religions. How to acquire the power to live that way and consistently practice such goodness is where the major religions may split off from each other.
| |
| | |
| Yes, Bay Guy and I were agreeing on the morality of Christ's teachings. I didn't mean to confuse you. Sorry. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Of course, we were also agreeing on the morality of Patanjali's sutras.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | YogaDancer wrote:
Happy Easter for those of you who practice Christianity!
and Cyndi is puzzled??
Why are you only wishing Happy Easter to just those who practice Christianity?? I'm Hindu.... I celebrated Easter too!! We had Nepalis friends over this weekend...we ate Easter Candy, celebrated Holi and they got Easter Baskets filled with Easter goodies. If Neelbhai was here I would have given him an Easter Basket filled with Mangoes So, Happy Easter YogaDancer. | |
| | |
| Although it certainly wasn't meant to be an inclusive well-wish, admitedly, my thoughts were for those Christian celebrating the elevation of Jesus.
That Hindus, Jews, Agnostics, Buddhists would make a special celebration out of the day hadn't really crossed my consciouness.
I know lots of people who use any faith's holiday as a reason to eat like pigs, enjoying candy, and a reason to get together with family, watch the boob-tube (read: Easter and Thanksgiving and the Great Sportsman's Holiday, Super Bowl), etc., but as a holiday of faith? The odds present it as unlikely to someone not born into that faith. The holidays of a childhood are the last elements a convert lets go. Perhaps I should say it is the icons that are last released, such as the Easter Bunny, Santa's gift giving, etc?
So Cyndi? Happy Easter (or enjoy Easter icons) in your Hindu Home. I didn't intend to leave anyone out.
| |
| | |
| YogaDancer - 2005-03-28 8:16 AM
Although it certainly wasn't meant to be an inclusive well-wish, admitedly, my thoughts were for those Christian celebrating the elevation of Jesus.
Thank you! It was a great day to remember the Resurrection. Age and a certain propensity to obesity made me skip the chocolate bunnies (*sniff!*), but the singing at church was great, the sermon was great, and it was a day of good reflection on the sacrific and triumph that set me free and changed my life.
Best wishes,
Jeri | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | For the record. Actually, my celebrating Easter, Christmas or whatever has NOTHING to do with my reminents from my childhood as far as letting go from any kind of conversion. It has everything to do with the fact that I respect my children and my family who are not of my Hindu faith and I honor them - so does my Hindu husband and other Hindu friends that are a part of our lives. Even my Tibetan Monk friends and Tibetan friends do the same thing with their Buddhist faith. In fact, my guru teaches to keep my Christian upbringing in its proper perspective - which is what I do. If I did not celebrate my children's holiday's with them what kind of Mother would I be?? If I didn't honor my Father and his belief's what kind of child would I be?? So, instead of being indifferent to them and causing a possible upset in their world's, I choose to make them happy, which is really what being Christ-like is all about, right?? My Father respects the Hindu faith more because I don't try to impose my belief's on him, my children have more respect for me too. It's called setting and living an example which is more important as far as I'm concerned. There are so many factors at play here. Soo, if I were to be limiting to just my faith and belief's...THAT would definitely be closed minded and that I am not. I just wanted to clarify that with no hard feelings as your post about eating like pigs, enjoying candy and a family or friends gathering was rather insulting because I really can't see fault in that as celebrations are usually done in this manner. You haven't lived until you've celebrated a true Nepalis, Tibetan or Indian holiday celebration. My children, family and friends are lucky that they get to experience all of this with me and my Hindu family!! Talk about Diversity and broadening their spiritual knowledge!! | |
| | |
| Uh-huh.
Frankly, I could care less if someone were offended by my observation about eating like pigs. I'd tend to say it struck too close to home, if they did. The "normal" behavior for Americans, when faced with the opportunity to celebrate anything is to eat and/or drink themselves into a stupor. If there is any doubt about this, simply take a look at the grocery store sales and discounts on the "fixins" for holiday meals.
I find it interesting to note how personally you took my well-wish. I don't exclude anyone, but for those celebrating a pivotal event of their faith? Sure. I honor that before any other celebrant's reasons. So figure my wish is for your kids and in-laws if you would like. And for those celebrating with, enjoying the glow of faith.
But then, I know far too many Christians who don't really even know what Easter is. Before I assume there is that glow in your or any other family, I'd tend to want to observe their every-other-day honoring of their faith. Out of curiosity, that is. Not only is it interesting to observe hypocrisy, but also one who lives the tenants of their faith. Diversity is the greatest gift, and everywhere we look, if we open our eyes. Being human means diversity!
Dig my thorn out of your skin, though, Cyndi. Wasn't 'bout you!
| |
| | |
| Well I am definitely forum challenged since I thought I already posted a reply to this but it disappeared. If it comes up twice now please forgive me. Here goes again:
Jeri wrote: "We believe that every man is sinful and that he cannot be enlightened from within. We are completely dependent upon God, through the office of Christ our High Priest, to declare us justified before God and to act in us to sanctify us and cause us to grow in faith in Him."
To this I would like to respectfully suggest that logically, it seems that if God and Christ are the source of enlightenment, and Christ is now in us, then enlightenment surely does come from within.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Uh Huh back at ya Yoga Dancer. You know, frankly, the only thing that struck a *nerve* with me was how your comments could be so hateful, demeaning, insulting and downright judgemental about how Americans and other countries celebrate in their traditions. Seems to me that you are the one with the problem. There is nothing wrong with how Americans, or anyone else celebrates and to put a label on it as if it were bad or wrong, is IMO a stupid observation and a very closed minded one at that!!
The issues you have with the grocery stores and over consumption is not limited to holidays, it is an overall issue in general. So, to label everyone in that category because they want to celebrate is totally ridiculous and outrageous to say the least. Attacking it from your angle and perspective is not going to make a difference or a change for the better. I hope one day you can come down off your *do good throne* and *holier than thou* attitude and join the rest of us as we celebrate life and show people by demonstration and by being a good example. I find it funny that you have a problem with your country's own traditions - its mind boggling to me that you posted so harshly the way you did. Where is your compassion?? Where is your tolerance?? Don't worry, I can handle all your thorns, I really don't care what you think about me and what I do. Pettiness is something that I don't deal in. Have a wonderful day | |
| | |
| [sigh] Here we go again.
Just because you disagree with me, and therfore documented facts about dining in America, and just because you didn't like hearing it? Doesn't make me stupid, close minded, hateful, demeaning, insulting, and (huh?) judgemental.
As far as me having 'issues' with grocery stores? I love 'em. Love sales, love to shop, and love to take advantage of marketing to America's obesity.
My own country's traditions? Yeah, I have trouble with a lot of 'em, but I only look at people who remember their supposedly belonging, if not practicing a faith on that holiday with pity. Tolerance? Well, they can sure do what they want, and if having a big meal and eating wonderful chocolate is how they choose to celebrate that momentary rememberance of at least the day if not the actual reason? More power to 'em.
Dearheart, once again, this isn't about you and it sure isn't about me. Attack all you want, but you're projecting a lot more caring and judgementalism on me that I warrant.
Christine
Still lookin' for that throne.... does it come with a halo? | |
| | |
| Jeriwho,
I don't know where you live or if you travel for yoga, but a studio where I teach, Golden Heart Yoga in Annapolis, MD is offering a workshop this summer that peaks my interest.
Carolyn Bluemle, a long time teacher in this area, very well-respected and a certified Iyengar teacher is doing a class on Body Prayer. Evidently her spiritual path has led through through from Christianity, through Buddhism and other complimentary, do-the-right-thing paths, bringing her back to incorporate it all into her Christian faith. Her words are "rediscovering her roots" which I thought was nice.
Anyway, I think it sounds very interesting given the question of Christians practicing yoga, and if yoga has a place in people's spiritual path, although yoga is not a faith.
Thought you might be interested, too. 
Christine | |
| | |
| everything is attitude~ (i hope you dont mind me replying as i am new to this site) Yoga can be a very religeous practice if your mind is in it~ | |
| | |
| Erika--of course nobody minds if you post--welcome kiddo. | |
| | |
| MichaelJ - 2005-03-28 1:51 PM
Jeri wrote: "We believe that every man is sinful and that he cannot be enlightened from within. We are completely dependent upon God, through the office of Christ our High Priest, to declare us justified before God and to act in us to sanctify us and cause us to grow in faith in Him."
To this I would like to respectfully suggest that logically, it seems that if God and Christ are the source of enlightenment, and Christ is now in us, then enlightenment surely does come from within.
Well, that's a nifty way of looking at it, I guess, but Christ isn't in everybody. He indwells His people. And though He dwells in us, we access divine wisdom by appeals to God, (not by appealing to ourselves) though certainly that "prompting of the Holy Spirit" will be received inwardly. Yet still, it comes from God. The book of James tells believers in Christ to ask God for wisdom. It doesn't say to look inward. And the books of Romans and Hebrews both refer to the labor of Christ before the throne of God even now, making intercession as our High Priest with God to bestow strength and blessing upon us.
And remember, Christ is in us, but we are also in Him. The view of indwelling is not taught in Scripture as a source of enlightenment in the way that you're suggesting so much as a state of union with our Savior. The Bible teaches that we still go to Christ, not ourselves, for Him to take action in us to continue to conform us to His image and give us victory over sin.
We do not place faith in ourselves. Out faith is in Christ. Hope that explains it!
Jeri | |
| | |
| YogaDancer - 2005-03-28 3:03 PM
Carolyn Bluemle, a long time teacher in this area, very well-respected and a certified Iyengar teacher is doing a class on Body Prayer. Evidently her spiritual path has led through through from Christianity, through Buddhism and other complimentary, do-the-right-thing paths, bringing her back to incorporate it all into her Christian faith. Her words are "rediscovering her roots" which I thought was nice.
Christine
Thank you Christine. It would be impossible for me to attend, but perhaps if you attend you can come back and synopsize it for the forum.
Best wishes,
Jeri | |
| | |
| Before Jesus died, He willed us His Peace...He wants us to have peace in the midst of our current circumstances--peace in the morning, at night and all times in between. Peace is our inheritance! And it is a wonderful possession.
-Joyce Meyer
How can we get His peace in our practice of Yoga?
Edited by MrD 2005-03-28 7:55 PM
| |
| | |
| ...we access divine wisdom by appeals to God...
As they say in Thailand, SAME SAME, BUT DIFFERENT!
Christ is in us, but we are also in Him
Christ=God : Christ is in us=God in us.
a state of union with our Savior
Yoga=union
We do not place faith in ourselves. Our faith is in Christ
In Yoga we also place our faith in God, not in our self (small s - ie, ego/personality. A common misinterpretation.)
Seeking Self (capital S) or Atman = Seeking Brahman, or Supreme Being (God).
Well, I can understand how Christians might have some trouble with this equation.
Back to the first quote,
...we access divine wisdom by appeals to God...
Here's a quote from Swami Sivananda:
"Therefore, to get success in concentration, meditation and the practice of Yoga, you must have tremendous patience, tremendous will and tremendous perseverance. Plunge yourself in concentration. Merge the mind in the one idea of God and God alone. Let the mind fully get absorbed there. Forget other things. Let the whole body, muscles, tissues, nerves, cells and brain be filled with the one idea of God. This is the way to positive success. Great sages and saints of yore have practiced Yoga in this way only. Work hard. You will reach the goal. You will also become a great saint. Whatever one has achieved can be achieved by others also. This is the Law.
Full text here:
http://www.yoga.com/ydc/enlighten/enlighten_document.asp?ID=245§ion=9&cat=197
IMHO the differences are very slight, and mainly of approach, semantics, and aesthetics.
Exclusivity is a blight upon any faith, and is by no means exclusive to some Christian sects.
The Truth is in there...  | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Tat tvam asi...
Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma...
Om nama Sivaya.
| |
| | |
| I can't resist posting another gem from Swami Sivananda:
The word Yoga comes from the Sanskrit root Yuj which means to join. Yoga is a science that teaches us the method of joining the individual soul and the Supreme Soul. It is the merging of the individual will with the Cosmic or Universal Will. Yoga is that inhibition of the functions of the mind which leads to the absolute abidance of the soul in its own real nature of Divine Glory and Divine Splendour. It is the process by which the identity of the individual soul and the Oversoul is established by the Yogi. In other words, the human soul is brought into conscious communion with God. Yoga is the Science of sciences that disentangles the individual soul from the phenomenal world of sense-objects and links with the Absolute, whose inherent attributes are Infinite Bliss, Supreme Peace, Infinite Knowledge and unbroken Joy.
Full text here:
http://www.yoga.com/ydc/enlighten/enlighten_document.asp?ID=245§ion=9&cat=197
Build Bridges, Not Walls. | |
| | |
| WOW- It took me SOOOO long to get through this one!
What I have to say:
To answer the original question: Yes (Chrisians CAN practice yoga)
My thoughts: OMG, after reading all of this, I can't WAIT for the day that we reach the point of UNITY THROUGH DIVERSITY. Think about it............... It almost feels like it is here, where we can ALL be one with "God" , it will be one large giant enlightment. (Take that how you will) But, it also feels so far away. I guess, that is a whole other topic (What is time, etc etc)
Anyways, IMO, Yoga is a very good tool to do so. | |
| | |
| Jeri is quite an able spokesman for classic Christianity. I agree with all that he has said in this thread, since I share his theological stance.
I also see the similarity between moral teachings in many religions. But let's not reduce a religion to its moral teachings. Certainly tantra is not limited to, or even defined by, moral teachings. It seems to me that the central assertion in what I have learned in tantra is that we are all parts of God, dancing the dance of hide and seek with the other parts of God. Suffering comes from forgetting this, & bliss comes from remembering who we are. That probably isn't a very good summary, but the point is that the point is more like "who God is," and"who we are," than moral teachings.
Likewise, the central assertion of Christianity is the person and nature of Jesus.
| |
| | |
| elson - 2005-03-29 2:51 AM
Jeri is quite an able spokesman for classic Christianity. I agree with all that he has said in this thread, since I share his theological stance.
[SNIP] Likewise, the central assertion of Christianity is the person and nature of Jesus.
Nicely put! Thank you. Yes, classical Christianity looks for mercy on our sinful condition and we place our hope in Christ. We rejoice when we see Him at work in us, and we learn to have fellowship with Him and partake of Him. We wait hopefully for the day when we see Him face to face and our sin is no more; no more separation from Him, no more doubt, no more causing pain to others. But this life is a process of the work of Christ triumphing in us by our faith in Him, as He conforms us to His mind and likeness.
Just one correction, my tolerant friend elson, I am a "she," not a "he." | |
| | |
|
IMHO the differences are very slight, and mainly of approach, semantics, and aesthetics.
Exclusivity is a blight upon any faith, and is by no means exclusive to some Christian sects.
And some Christians who are more liberal than historic Protestant Christianity would agree with you. But adherents to historic Protestant Christianity would not agree with your assessment. We measure divine nature against the Bible and will reject any claim of any being that departs from the God proclaimed in the Bible.
We seek union with God in Christ, and we seek a distinct, separate individual, Jesus Christ, who died for the world but specifically atoned for the sins of His people. He has granted us forgiveness, and we believe that the forgiveness that He grants is the only means of entrance and acceptance with God. Is that a religion of exclusion? Yes it certainly is, but any Christian who takes the Bible as the sole authority of faith and practice will be exclusive. We believe that nobody comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ.
"Therefore, to get success in concentration, meditation and the practice of Yoga, you must have tremendous patience, tremendous will and tremendous perseverance. Plunge yourself in concentration. Merge the mind in the one idea of God and God alone. Let the mind fully get absorbed there
Christians who live by what the Bible teaches do not believe that by "tremendous patience, tremendous will and tremendous perseverance" we would ever be able to "merge the mind in the one idea of God and God alone." In fact, we believe something quite opposite to that. We believe that Jesus Christ, by His labor to live a perfectly righteous life, to die an acceptable death that made Him an offering for our sin, and who now intercedes for His people before the throne of God, captures our hearts and minds and works in us to conform us to Himself. **He** makes us acceptable to God. *He* works in us to change us from what we are. *He* will triumph in us. The "tremendous patience, tremendous will and tremendous perseverance" of Christianity comes from Christ, not us. For salvation is "not of works, lest any man should boast." We possess no power to join to God. Rather, the Son of God has exerted His power to join us to God.
This is why the Lord Jesus raised the dead. We are the dead. We are dead in sin, and He raises us to life in Him. We are blind, and He enables us to see Him. We are leprous with sin, and He cleanses us. Our religion is not one of effort to attain union with God. Our religion is humbled gratitude and joyful thanksgiving because our God has found us and rejoiced over us when we are unworthy of His righteousness. And because He has loved us so much, He has fellowship with us, and He delivers us from our sin through the atonign Blood of Christ.
Jeri | |
| | |
|
You're not discussing, you're preaching.
| |
| | |
| Ok Jeri, I get your drift. If it's working for you, run with it.
What's your denomination?
I am willing to bet that merging the mind in God (or Christ) is indeed a form of meditation used by Christians.
I am sure you would reject all forms of Christianity which vary from your sects' doctrines right?
I think it's unfortunate, but then, It's never really been my intention to convert anyone, only to lift the dark doubts laid upon their minds about yoga and spirituality (as opposed to stretching) by misinformed members of the clergy.
Edited by sivaram 2005-03-29 7:44 AM
| |
| | |
| Preaching? Guest, I didn't find it so. I see that as a supersensitivity, to which you are entitled.
Any time someone speaks of their beliefs in the terms of "We believe..." vs. "You will..." or "You must... or else xxx will/won't happen..." it's not preaching to me. "We believe" offers information. That which the listener can take or leave. At least IMHO.
Sivaram, I also find your statements pretty interesting, too. Perhaps I should say assumptions as a given!
>>I'm willing to bet ..." << and >>"I am sure you would reject..."<<
Granted, there are many denominations that do reject denominational differences, but there are those who try to look at The Word vs. clinging to one man's interpertation thereof.
If you're trying >>to lift the dark doubts laid upon their minds about yoga and spirituality ... by misinformed members of the clergy << don't be so quick to assume. You never know what you're going to find in someone's heart despite their denomination. Assuming someone is closed has the preacher (i.e. the Deliver-er of The News and your instance, the yogi) coming off as presumptous and close-minded him/herself! Try to look for the positive when you offer this enlightenment. You might find a like-minded person or a kindred soul!
Remember, it's not up to us to judge someone else's spiritual path, nor there place on it. There is but One God, but many paths to the Divine. (Satchitananda?)
Christine
Edited by YogaDancer 2005-03-29 8:05 AM
| |
| | |
| Dear FamousLadyJane:
Thanks for your re-surrection of the original question which was flowing away. Can Christians practice Yoga? And, thanks for you input. Additional input follows:
1. Yes, Christians can practice Yoga. Because Jesus Christ himself did so, and that is NOT metaphorically, he actually practiced Yoga, withh that particular word in it.
2. Yes, Christians are practicing yoga, for example, many bulletin board members are christians and practicing yoga for long time. Can one particular Christian say that the others are NOT christians for that matter?
3. And, even those who are not actually doing any Yoga Practice, but are participating on this bulletin board are practicing Yoga. Because, this is a Yoga based Bulletin Board. And, they are interested in knowing Yoga Related things. So, they are practicing Yoga.
Yoga is a base of human life, and there is no way to avoid it. Anybody, practicing any good thing, is practicing Yoga. In terms of timeframe all well known religions are but recent entities.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2005-03-29 7:51 AM
Dear FamousLadyJane:
Thanks for your re-surrection of the original question which was flowing away. Can Christians practice Yoga? And, thanks for you input. Additional input follows:
1. Yes, Christians can practice Yoga. Because Jesus Christ himself did so, and that is NOT metaphorically, he actually practiced Yoga, withh that particular word in it.
2. Yes, Christians are practicing yoga, for example, many bulletin board members are christians and practicing yoga for long time. Can one particular Christian say that the others are NOT christians for that matter?
3. And, even those who are not actually doing any Yoga Practice, but are participating on this bulletin board are practicing Yoga. Because, this is a Yoga based Bulletin Board. And, they are interested in knowing Yoga Related things. So, they are practicing Yoga.
Yoga is a base of human life, and there is no way to avoid it. Anybody, practicing any good thing, is practicing Yoga. In terms of timeframe all well known religions are but recent entities.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org
No Problem, and thankyou .
I was going to edit my post because I thought, do I really want to be a part of the hodge podge? Sometimes I just feel like I dont have the energy to discuss.... beliefs, for lack of a better word. In my family I have experienced religious prejudism, and it is a sore subject for me. Now, most of the time, I rather just go on my way and keep to myself. This is quiet and nice, but sometimes lonely.
Anyways, I suppose I will keep that up there.
Truely to you, Namaste. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | And some Christians who are more liberal than historic Protestant Christianity would agree with you. But adherents to historic Protestant Christianity would not agree....
I guess that I'll have to comment a bit on the implied authority of
"historical Protestant Christianity". Having been a Protestant
Christian in an old-line denomination for a significant part of my life,
I have some basis from which to respond.
The Christians with whom I grew up did not express themselves with
rigidity about either the bible or the various manifestations of spirituality.
Sure, yes, the path to god was only through christ, but the word ECUMENICAL
arose quite a lot. Tolerance and respect for other systems of belief were the
norm, and, in particular, you never heard anyone asserting that
the bible was to be taken literally (e.g., in regard to creation/evolution).
People regularly dismissed some of the absurd passages found in Book of Leviticus.
The bible, after all, was written and assembled by humans based upon their
understanding of the divine. I would regard these people, as they themselves
would, as being practitioners of historical protestant christianity.
I'll also note another aspect of historical Protestant christianity -- witch hunts,
perhaps as in New England a few hundred years ago. These acts appear to me
to have derived from inflexible, unthinking, and inhumane applications of Protestant
doctrine. [The Spanish had their auto-da-fe's, but they were Catholic.]
I bring this last not to be inflammatory but simply to underline that historicism
does not in itself guarantee either morality or common sense. I've written
about common sense in connection with an historic yoga text over in the
thread about "cleansing" in the Hatha Yoga forum. I would apply this kind of
criticism to essentially every religion of which I am aware, so I don't mean to
be hard on christians in particular. I just find it illogical to assume that a book
written by men has authority that goes beyond our ability to interpret, filter,
and apply it to our lives. When these books don't pass the laugh test, then
I know it's time to abandon literalism.
| |
| | |
| Well said, Bay Guy - I would've just said the Bible is an unreliable text, but you said it so much better.
The term Historical Protestant Christianity sounds a bit self-serving to my ear, implying a claim to authenticity and authority. This is why I ask Jeri for her denomination. It qualifies her statements in a particular way, because there are many ways to classify Protestant groups. (See one article on the topic BELOW)
Jeri has said that just because there are divisions does not mean there is no definition of Christianity.
Fine. But I for one am interested to know the location of your camp, and how is it that you can be so certain that your version is correct, other than clinging to recieved dogma? Is it possible to experience the things you have written about, as in an experience of Grace? I ask sincerley - I would really like to know.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi2.htm
"...research shows that the population at-large rejects many beliefs that are embraced by evangelical Christians. For instance, most Americans do not believe in salvation by grace, alone; that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches; that they have a personal responsibility for evangelism; that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; or that Satan is a real being who can influence peopleís lives." 1 Of course, the opposite is true: most Evangelical Christians do not accept the beliefs of mainline and liberal Christian churches and of the majority of American Christians. In fact, some conservative Christians do not regard mainline and liberal churches to be fully Christian.
Grouping denominations:
There are over 1,000 Christian religious organizations in North America alone. Each has their own set of beliefs, policies and practices. When discussing such topics as the divinity of Christ, salvation, heaven, etc., it would be hopelessly unwieldy to explain the beliefs of each faith group. Religious authors often divide Christian denominations by family or into a three or two mode model.
Grouping Christians by family: A 16 mode model:
One method of sorting faith groups is by family. Within each family, individual denominations share a common belief system, and/or a common heritage. The following is an example of one of many such models, It was largely patterned after J. Gordon Melton's "The Encyclopedia of American Religions":
Adventists
Baptists
Christian Science - Metaphysical
Communal
European Free Church
Holiness
Independent Fundamentalist
Latter-day Saints
Liberal
Lutheran
Messianic Judaism
Pentecostal
Pietism - Methodist
Reformed - Presbyterian
Spiritualist, Psychic, New Age
Anglican communion
Another way of grouping Christians: A simplistic two mode model -- "us and them":
Many people tend to view the Christian world in terms of "us ". e.g. "there is my denomination, and then there are all the other faith groups that only consider themselves to be Christian ." For example, a Fundamentalist or other Evangelical Christian might believe that his/her faith group represents true Christianity. She/he might consider non-conservative denominations, grouped together, as non-Christian, heretical Christian, quasi-Christian, false Christian etc. Similarly, a liberal Christian might lump together Fundamentalists, Pentecostals, Charismatics and other Evangelicals as a single group without differentiating among them. Contributing to this view of Christianity is the public's general lack of knowledge of other denominations within their religion, and a common inability to differentiate among those faith groups which are very different from their own
Edited by sivaram 2005-03-29 7:50 PM
| |
| | |
| YogaDancer - 2005-03-30 9:03 PM
Remember, it's not up to us to judge someone else's spiritual path, nor there place on it. There is but One God, but many paths to the Divine. (Satchitananda?)
This is in fact what is disputed by conservative Christians. That is what I find unfortunate, though it is not and never has been my project to even attempt to convince them.
For clarification on my stance, please refer to prior posts on this thread and the one on the meditation forum which kicked off this lively and interesting debate. | |
| | |
| sivaram - 2005-03-29 7:38 AM
Ok Jeri, I get your drift. If it's working for you, run with it.
What's your denomination?
Well, I'm Presbyterian (PCA), but the doctrinal views that I have explained would be shared by any denomination that is in agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith, so that would include a lot of Southern Baptist churches, some Independent Baptist and Reformed Baptist, some Methodist, Wesleyen, and---of course---many churches that are called "Bible Churches." Even some very conservative Anglican churches would be in agreement with what I have explained about the doctrines of Christ.
As I said, Christianity (in the way I have defined it, but that's a large group among those who profess Christ. It's called Historic Protestant Christianity.) *is* exclusive in its outlook. That probably doesn't meet with the approval of many here, but let's not redefine things based on what we expect to see in others. I'd like you to understand that these are the doctrines that many people hold, including some who practice yoga.
I really enjoy yoga, but there is nothing spiritual in the practice of it in my life. My hope, my expectation of righteousness, my confidence, and my consolation are all vested in what Jesus Christ has done for me, and His power to triumph over sin and death. I do thank God that after a couple years of severe back pain His Providence guided me to a yoga class, but I likewise thank Him for His Providence in providing my job for me, my daily food, the birds that come to the feeder in my back yard, and the gas station down the street that fixes me car, etc.
Yoga has been and continues to be a wonderful way to find relief from my curvy spine. But that's all it is to me. If adherents of a spiritual path in yoga tell me that I need to participate in the spiritual side of it, I just say , "No I don't. Christ alone is my sufficiency" And if Pat Robertson tells me I'm in sin for doing yoga, I'd just say, "No I'm not. Christ alone is my sufficiency." Same answer for either side of the question, because it's just exercise to me.
Jeri | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2005-03-29 9:51 AM
1. Yes, Christians can practice Yoga. Because Jesus Christ himself did so, and that is NOT metaphorically, he actually practiced Yoga, with that particular word in it.
No He didn't, not according to the Bible anyway.
2. Yes, Christians are practicing yoga, for example, many bulletin board members are christians and practicing yoga for long time. Can one particular Christian say that the others are NOT christians for that matter?
Of course we can. I certainly do. I just use it as a form of exercise. But my faith and confidence are in Christ and Christ alone.
3. And, even those who are not actually doing any Yoga Practice, but are participating on this bulletin board are practicing Yoga. Because, this is a Yoga based Bulletin Board. And, they are interested in knowing Yoga Related things. So, they are practicing Yoga.
Well, then it's how you would define "practicing yoga". Reading a bulletin board is NOT something I would include in the practice of yoga, but it's pretty clear that I live under a very Western, almost Aristotelian view of reality (viewing the quality of reality as made up of hard and fast distinctions). I actually believe that doing one thing is not the same thing at all as doing something else.
Yoga is a base of human life, and there is no way to avoid it. Anybody, practicing any good thing, is practicing Yoga. In terms of timeframe all well known religions are but recent entities.
Hmm, well, that gets back to such a broad defintion that you make your term mean every possible thing. But if you want to define yoga that way, that's cool---for you.
| |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2005-03-29 6:49 PM
I guess that I'll have to comment a bit on the implied authority of
"historical Protestant Christianity".
I hope I wasn't misread. There is no authority whatsoever vested in being historic. It's a mere descriptor, and it's benefit was to show that Pat Robertson, whatever his views, is not speaking for a large group of Christians friom which many Evangelical churches have sprung.
In other words, a lot of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists today trace their lineage back to historic Protestant Christianity. Pat Robertson does not. His version of Christianity espouses a moral conservatism and a beleif in the Bible, but quite frankly, we think he's a nut. I'm sorry; that's not kind, but there is a huge quantity of experiential stuff that he would but on the same level of authority as the Bible. So I am trying to draw a distinction about who I am in terms of where I am coming from doctrinally, as opposed to Pat Robertson or the 700 club gang. To outsiders, we look the same, but I assure you, we are NOT doctrinally close.
Jeri
I'll also note another aspect of historical Protestant christianity -- witch hunts,
perhaps as in New England a few hundred years ago. These acts appear to me
to have derived from inflexible, unthinking, and inhumane applications of Protestant
doctrine. [The Spanish had their auto-da-fe's, but they were Catholic.]
The witch hunts of Salem were opposed by other Puritans, even in that day. And those witch hunts occured in a town that had embraced the Inner Light teachings of Anne Hutchinson. Salem had also endorsed a series of compromises that allowed land holders roles of church office WITHOUT proving out their doctrinal readiness for such positions.
In short, the churches in Salem were already apostasizing when the witch hunts occurred, and they were relying heavily on experiential events (rather than doctrine) to support their faith.
The truth is that the Puritan movement in England effectively ended the practice of witch hunts, as their legal system insisted on far more extensive hard evidence than had been required under Roman Catholic church/legal proceedings. And in Salem, the town leaders rescinded those legal requirements to build a case, and that was why the flood gates opened for hysteria.
There was nothing good or right about the Salem witch trials, but they were clearly an anomaly, and the laws based on Biblical justice had to be revoked for the abuses to occur.
I bring this to your attention just to set the record straight from a historical and doctrinal point of view. The Puritans in Salem were highly secularized and had chosen to live in a religion based on experience rather than doctrine. In fact, they had gotten a lot close to what Pat Robertson believes than to anything I would believe. And he's out hunting withces too.
Jeri | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Thanks for the information on Salem & apostasy. While I really had not thought
of this aspect of that history, it seems certain that no Protestant group today would
be willing to sanction whatever doctrines led to witch hunting --- suggesting that today's
reading would always assert apostasy on some level? Anyway, it seems very clear that
they had not followed literally Christ's statements in the Book of John!! ........ 8:7
But this is really quite interesting and leads to more questions. Are all the acts of
violence conducted in the name of religion (christian religion, in this case) necessarily
connected to a misapplication of religious doctrine? Were all Protestant witch hunts
associated with apostasy?
And more, but I have to get to work!
| |
| | |
| >>...Christ alone is my path.<<
Jeri, I'm not certain how to explain this, but I admire your convictions and your expression thereof, while you take what you want in yoga in this case, and leave the rest. (That Al-Anon aphromism covers so much!) As I've opined previously, I find something wonderful about people who have such confidence. I read something in a book explaining and discussing Wicca that has always stuck with me. It said that a true Wicca doesn't believe, s/he knows. I think the same could be said of any faith and it is beautiful to see.
A question.
Since the purpose of asana is (this might come as a surprise to many) not stretching, but rather stilling the body and mind in preparation for meditation, which in turn is to bring us closer to the Divine, how does this aspect of asana not fit into the spiritual aspect of your life?
Not excluding, of course, the fact that it already fits into the health maintenance aspect of your life.
Just curious. For those who jump (all over me) to conclusions about what I mean (rather than asking), this is just a question, not a judgement.
Christine | |
| | |
| My comments:
Yoga has been and continues to be a wonderful way to find relief from my curvy spine. But that's all it is to me. If adherents of a spiritual path in yoga tell me that I need to participate in the spiritual side of it, I just say , "No I don't. Christ alone is my sufficiency" And if Pat Robertson tells me I'm in sin for doing yoga, I'd just say, "No I'm not. Christ alone is my sufficiency." Same answer for either side of the question, because it's just exercise to me.
Jeri
===> No adherents of spiritual path in Yoga are telling you that you need to do anything. (My statement is : You can never avoid Yoga if you are on a spiritual path.) In the same way, NO adherents of Christianity should tell others that others should seek Christ, which they Do. And, that is the exact problem.
===> Now, what you call use of Yoga for curvy spine or for exercise is called HathaYoga and this is not a question of belief or interpretation, that is exactly how it is stated in multipler resources, similar to the Bible for Christtianity you quoted. There are other parts in Yoga Called as Rajayoga, whichh is the science of meditation, etc. So, for example, you can not use (except in another context, which I am not going to expound on just now) Rajayoga for your curvy spine. In the same way, the belief in Christ is NOT giving some of the Yogis which they are looking for. This must be accepted using your own logic system.
===> Now, with no offese to you, and with all reverence to the Yogi Christ (in my definition), your statements that Yoga is only an exercise and nothing else for you is like saying 'I use Bible only as my pillow while sleeping, and that is all that is in Bible for me. Because, I use it only that way.".
Respected Yoga Dacner's question related to Asana: See above post.
===> The Asana in Hathayoga is NOT same as in Rajayoga. In Rajayoga it means a steady and comfortable pose to be used for Meditation. In Hathayoga it means the various Yoga Poses which are meant for Body-Mind training, which are mostly related to health and somewhat getting a hold of mind.
Peace
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| I must say that it is refreshing to see such an apparently civil and knowledgable discussion of religion. I say apparently because I have so little knowledge myself, I honestly don't follow it all, but it sounds like you folks know what you are talking about
It seems to me that a lot of problems with religion occur, like the Salem witch hunts as an extreme example, because of individuals not having a full understanding of their own religion. Especially those raised in "church-going" but not deeply religious homes seem to accept a very narrow and rote set of rules rather than a deeper understanding of the philosophical basis of those rules and how to apply them to their own thinking and beliefs. A funny example - when my kids were little, we were driving somewhere and I had a coffee or juice or something that I was drinking. One of them told me very solemnly that I was not supposed to drink and drive There are seemingly a lot of otherwise intelligent adults in the world who apply the teachings of their churches in an equally childlike manner. I work with two people who are both strong Catholics. One said that she absolutely couldn't do something of other with her wedding ring because it was "blessed in church by the priest." The other one, who understands her religion better just scoffed and said "no problem - I could bless your ring. Anybody could bless your ring and it would be just as valid as the priest doing it." The look of shock on the first person's face was really something!
Similarly, the whole right to life thing that is going on right now causes discussion about what is really Catholic and what isn't. My knowledgable co-worker says that Catholics as a group, would not believe in prolonging life the way it is being done in the famous case. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Pope.
Sorry to veer off the topic. I just want to say again how well this is being handled. Good to be able to discuss and learn without craziness. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| >>You can never avoid Yoga if you are on a spiritual path<<
Neel, would you also be able to say that all yogis practice Christianity because the yamas and niyamas instruct us to behave in ways that are similar to the teachings of Christ? | |
| | |
| To All- Yes, Christians can practice yoga and we all agree on that. When I taught yoga in West Texas, I was called a New Ager, etc. for practicing yoga (really narrow-minded people live in my hometown). I always told my class to keep their mind open to new ideas relating to yoga, nothing to do with religion. That is up to them. I had Buddists, Christians and Muslims in my class. If anyone had a problem with the sign of OM, they did not have to participate or I would remind them that the hospital up the street that owned this Health Club has a beautiful chapel with a stained glass window that has the symbol OM engraved on it!
If you are comfortable with your faith as I am with mine, I respect others faiths and learn from them. I have visited Buddist Temples in Hong Kong, Muslim Mosques in Egypt and Catholic churches in Europe etc. and have become more open minded and respectful of others faiths. I am a Protestant and have listened to the Southern Baptists slam the Catholics, etc. , so I am a non Denominational, Christian.
I see patients from all over here in SAT that enlighten me about their customs, etc. How cool! I feel so fortunate that I can clean their teeth and talk to them at the same time. We all should be open minded and learn from one another when it comes to religion and philosphy.
Namaste2 | |
| | |
| I want to be really careful here - these are precisely the things that fundamentalists love to fly off the handle over, believe me! Some clarification is needed: Ps 46:10 -
"Be still, and know that I am God! (emphsis added) I am exalted among the nations, I am exalted in the earth."
Mt 6:22, 23 -"The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! A popular commentary reads: The light--the lamp of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single--simple, clear. As applied to the outward eye, this means general soundness; particularly, not looking two ways. Here, as also in classical Greek, it is used figuratively to denote the simplicity of the mind's eye, singleness of purpose, looking right at its object, as opposed to having two ends in view. Can Christians Practice Yoga? Sure, why not! (Hatha) Yoga has done for me what I would never find in Christianity. I think we're all (including, perhaps most of all Pat Robertson and all his ilk) kind of missing the whole point. Before I make too much of a fool of myself or go off on some tangent, I'll offer this thought:
"If our God is so fragile that He or She is threatened by new names then we ought to look at that." In fact, to him, true idolatry (worship of a God other than that of your religion) has nothing to do with labels: "How much idolatry are we committing in terms of money or power or fame or cars or big homes or stock or family? I think it's a very narrow thing to define idolatry just in terms of alternative names for divinity. The fact is that the real idols that we fall into—not just as individuals, but as a culture—are the things that are really killing our soul." | |
| | |
| jeriwho - 2005-03-30 5:06 AM
kulkarnn - 2005-03-29 9:51 AM
1. Yes, Christians can practice Yoga. Because Jesus Christ himself did so, and that is NOT metaphorically, he actually practiced Yoga, with that particular word in it.
No He didn't, not according to the Bible anyway.
***When you say not according to the bible, do you mean there is no mention of him practicing? Or does it distinctly point out that he did not practice yoga? Again, whatever the source, it was in fact written by man, therefore fallible.
2. Yes, Christians are practicing yoga, for example, many bulletin board members are christians and practicing yoga for long time. Can one particular Christian say that the others are NOT christians for that matter?
Of course we can. I certainly do. I just use it as a form of exercise. But my faith and confidence are in Christ and Christ alone.
3. And, even those who are not actually doing any Yoga Practice, but are participating on this bulletin board are practicing Yoga. Because, this is a Yoga based Bulletin Board. And, they are interested in knowing Yoga Related things. So, they are practicing Yoga.
Well, then it's how you would define "practicing yoga". Reading a bulletin board is NOT something I would include in the practice of yoga, but it's pretty clear that I live under a very Western, almost Aristotelian view of reality (viewing the quality of reality as made up of hard and fast distinctions ). I actually believe that doing one thing is not the same thing at all as doing something else.
***Yoga is not simply asana practice, or we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. My understanding is that any action seeking to expand the mind outside of the current realm of experience in an effort to form a connection with the divine (whatever/whoever that may be ) is yoga. So that is what we're doing here on the board.
Yoga is a base of human life, and there is no way to avoid it. Anybody, practicing any good thing, is practicing Yoga. In terms of timeframe all well known religions are but recent entities.
Hmm, well, that gets back to such a broad defintion that you make your term mean every possible thing. But if you want to define yoga that way, that's cool---for you.
**See my response to the above statement. | |
| | |
| tourist - 2005-03-30 9:55 AM
It seems to me that a lot of problems with religion occur, like the Salem witch hunts as an extreme example, because of individuals not having a full understanding of their own religion.
Extremely observant! My way of saying it is that when faith relies on the feelings of the current moment as its authority rather than doctrine for its authority, then it becomes fanatical and dangerous.
But you said it better!
Jeri | |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2005-03-30 7:23 AM
Were all Protestant witch hunts associated with apostasy?
I don't know of any other Protestant witch hunts, not for literal witches. But if you will let me draw an analogy to modern times: when a bunch of alleged "Christians" blow up an abortion clinic or lynch some poor young man for homosexuality, yes, that is the result of apostasy from the doctrines of Christianity. Such behavior is a clear departure from the doctrines of the sovereignty of God taught in the Bible and from the knowledge of Christ and His commands not to live by the sword. It's written in the book of James: "The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." The Book of Romans devotes a couple passages to being in subjection to civil law. Christ Himself said that we must render to Caeser that which is his, and showed by the image of Caeser on the coin that Caeser had a right to coin money and therefore had a right to collect it. So we are not to be vigilantes, and our respect of civil authority reflects our understanding that God is in ultimate control. So when people who profess to be Christians willfully and with premeditation carry out vigilante actions, they demonstrate a rejection of some very basic and very clear doctrinal knowledge.
Hope that helps!
Jeri | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2005-03-30 8:57 AM
Now, with no offese to you, and with all reverence to the Yogi Christ (in my definition), your statements that Yoga is only an exercise and nothing else for you is like saying 'I use Bible only as my pillow while sleeping, and that is all that is in Bible for me. Because, I use it only that way.".
Thank you kulkarnn, and I am not offended. In fact, I would agree with you. If you use the Bible only as a pillow then it would be ridiculous for me to think it has had any other influence on you than a pillow would have. To you, it is just a pillow.
Jeri | |
| | |
| ajlewis - 2005-03-30 10:42 AM
"If our God is so fragile that He or She is threatened by new names then we ought to look at that." In fact, to him, true idolatry (worship of a God other than that of your religion) has nothing to do with labels: "How much idolatry are we committing in terms of money or power or fame or cars or big homes or stock or family? I think it's a very narrow thing to define idolatry just in terms of alternative names for divinity. The fact is that the real idols that we fall into—not just as individuals, but as a culture—are the things that are really killing our soul."
I think we are trying to define terms and examine what has actually been written in which Scriptures and what has not been written in those Scriptures. I really doubt that the documents of *any* religion are shaken by an in-depth discussion of how different people define theological terms and how they view history.
I think we are all agreeing that we have very different views, and we're describing them and asking questions and explaining them.
Jeri | |
| | |
| A man walked into the Women's Department of Macy's in New York City. He told the sales lady, "I would like a Baptist bra for my wife, size 36B". With a quizzical look, the saleslady asked, "What kind of bra?" He repeated, "A Baptist bra. She said to tell you that she wanted a Baptist bra and that you would know what she wanted. "Ah, now I remember," said the sales lady, "we don't get as many requests for Them as we used to. Mostly our customers lately want the Catholic bra or the Salvation Army bra, or the Presbyterian type". Confused and a little flustered, the man asked, "So what are the differences?" The lady responded, "Well, it's really quite simple. The Catholic type supports the masses, the Salvation Army lifts up the fallen, the Presbyterian type keeps them staunch and upright." He mused at that for a moment and then asked, "So, what is the Baptist type for?" "They", she replied, "make mountains out of molehills". | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Ho!!!
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | jeriwho - 2005-03-30 12:49 PM
Bay Guy - 2005-03-30 7:23 AM
Were all Protestant witch hunts associated with apostasy?
I don't know of any other Protestant witch hunts, not for literal witches. But if you will let me draw an analogy to modern times: when a bunch of alleged "Christians" blow up an abortion clinic or lynch some poor young man for homosexuality, yes, that is the result of apostasy from the doctrines of Christianity. Such behavior is a clear departure from the doctrines of the sovereignty of God taught in the Bible and from the knowledge of Christ and His commands not to live by the sword. It's written in the book of James: "The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." The Book of Romans devotes a couple passages to being in subjection to civil law. Christ Himself said that we must render to Caeser that which is his, and showed by the image of Caeser on the coin that Caeser had a right to coin money and therefore had a right to collect it. So we are not to be vigilantes, and our respect of civil authority reflects our understanding that God is in ultimate control. So when people who profess to be Christians willfully and with premeditation carry out vigilante actions, they demonstrate a rejection of some very basic and very clear doctrinal knowledge.
Hope that helps!
Jeri
Okay, here a site that lists about 800 people executed for witchcraft. The dates and
locations show many to be in post-reformation Germany and England (etc) so presumably
quite a few were done under protestant authority. I don't have details, of course, and
it's very likely that some of these used the bible or the church only as a prop in
settling personal accounts of one form or another.
http://www.illusions.com/burning/
There's lots more that's been written on this topic, especially from a feminist point of view.
Maybe this also raises the $64 dollar question: Is the death penalty either moral or
sanctionable under religious authority. My own reading of the Bhagavad Gita and
the Yoga Sutras is that neither would ever allow such "legal" action. My personal
interpretation of the New Testament is similar. The Old Testament,
in constrast, seems pretty comfortable with that kind of thing.
| |
| | |
| Well, one problem I see right off is that the documentation includes charges to which "witchcraft" has been affixed, like a stamp of approval. Anne Bolyn was charged with adultery as the first charge, and then witchcraft was added to certify that she would die (May 19, 1536). The practice of affixing the charge of witchcraft to a person to make sure they would be condemned when the real charge was something else was not unknown.
Anne Askew also appears on the list. You'll find her written in FOXE'S BOOK OF MARTYRS as an outstanding Christian woman who actually argued Sir Thomas Moore to a standstill on Christian doctrine. He was so furious with her that he wracked her with his hands, himself, and stood right at the pyre when she was burned. Nobody really thought she practiced witchcraft. The charge was added as an insult to her and a certification that she was worthy of death---an added charge to make her seem all the more wicked to onlookers.
Anybody who ran afoul of the established church (the papacy or Henry's version of the CHurch of England) during Henry's reign or during the reign of James and Charles and then Bonny Prince Charles on doctrinal grounds (and remember, Charles II killed hundreds of people for "covenantism") could have the appendix of "witchcraft" applied to their charges. But the real charge was refusal to submit to the state church, which was the church that made the King of England the religous authority for the realm.
I can't answer for the German side of the question. DUring Martin Luther's lifetime and aftrerward, Germany still had a lot of very powerful princes and barons of different faiths. But the list from England looks pretty bogus to me.
I'm sure there WERE women put to death explicitly for witchcraft, but there were no witch hunts, not like what you saw in Salem. Hunting out religious dissenters was the prime quest of the courts during the reigns of Henry VIII, his daughter Mary, and then James I, Charles I, and Charles II and James II. These were men/women who were trying to ram the English people back to some form of the papacy (although usually under the headship of the British king, not the pope).
To affront the king's authority in religious matters brought with it charges of heresy; and then "witchcraft" was affixed to the charges.
The Puritan Interegnum saw about 2 dozen women condemned for witchcraft all told, which is bad, but is certainly a drop from the papist and Anglican kings. The Puritans were still coming out of a culture that viewed witchcraft as a real threat, and I would say it's to the credit of strict Puritan law and its demand for evidence that the mortality rate dropped so sharply.
Jeri | |
| | |
| YogaDancer - 2005-03-30 7:57 AM
Since the purpose of asana is (this might come as a surprise to many) not stretching, but rather stilling the body and mind in preparation for meditation, which in turn is to bring us closer to the Divine, how does this aspect of asana not fit into the spiritual aspect of your life?
Not excluding, of course, the fact that it already fits into the health maintenance aspect of your life.
Thank you for your kind words. When you say asana, do you mean savasana? We actually have something similar to savasana in martial arts. The Japanese called it mok-suk, although it is not done in the prone position but rather seated on the knees, Japanese style. We martial artists believe that instant action snaps from knowledge, not tension, and so the quieting of the mind is essential to our practice, and at the end of class we perform the mok-suk to still ourselves and return to a steady state of mind.
You're the first person, even in yoga, to equate this with union to the Divine or preparation for meditation to me. I have always viewed savasana/mok-suk as returning to the steady state of awareness and receptivity that is essential for awareness of life around me.
Because I believe that Christ has brought me into union with Him, I've never expected any posture or position or mindset will give me that which I already have: intimate union with my God and the consolation of His presence. He's done that on my behalf.
If by asana you mean all the postures, no I never knew that either. I just do them as stretches. After class, I'm not at all inclined to meditate. I go home and either kick for a few minutes or go straight to a hot shower and then dinner and an episode of the Simpsons. I'm not trying to be disrespectful for people who meditate. But I've never felt an inclination to meditate or even be still after yoga.
Remember, I come from martial arts with a lot of jumping, kicking, and yelling. Sometimes yoga is so quieting that after class I want to make some noise, laugh out loud, or just be more active.
Jeri | |
| | |
| First, when you mention the witch hunts and Anne Askew, keep in mind that this is also a perfect example of the gender repression women have lived with throughout history. If you've never read Jung's coffee table book Witches you might pick it up. It's a psychological study on the "power" women have over men, particularly in sexual areas. Greatly simplified, the lure or arousal men felt God-knows-when ago was unexplainable, therefore frightening, therefore it must be magic. Similar to the fright and mystery menstruation caused.
Anyway, consider how "inappropriate" it was for women to have a brain, let alone use it and out-lecture a man. Consider that other male appendage, the Ego. No wonder he used his own civil (calling it secular) authority to dominate and reclaim his power. She might have well have Bobbit-ed him.
So this is yet another issue within the very male dominated church to consider.
Jeri, as far as asana, it loosely means "good seat." It's come to mean posture as related to yoga stretching. As you continue practicing yoga, you'll probably come across someone who knows the original purpose of this stretching, or asana, which is as I stated.
In my book, whatever reason someone does yoga is a good enough reason. I note that after your practice, you might not sit and meditate, but you do things that soothe and quiet before heading out (perhaps in celebration of good company) to dine. Even kicking is a focused activity!
Have you ever considered sitting for the meditation and simply using those moments to pray? Perhaps in gratitude, as you've stated, for your Savior bringing yoga into your good life? See, we don't have to do things the way someone else wants us to. That embodies that evil word "should" the use of which should cause one to be burned at the stake. Ok, maybe just poked with a sharp stick. Anyway, yoga is your practice, just as Christianity is your faith. Take those precious few quiet minutes and put them together?
I offer this simply because I couldn't sit still if you paid me. Both Svanasana and mediation are so difficult for me that I'd rather clean toilets. My own practice is Ashtanga, which is also jumping, moving, breathing, and stretching. I really try to sit a bit and at least clear my monkey mind, if not consider the blessings in my own life. Anyway, I don't think it could do anything but enhance anyone's moment with their version of the Divine.
Just thoughts.
Christine | |
| | |
| Backing up again-
In yoga, devotion is an important aspect of the overall set of practices. One may hold as one's object of worship and devotion the "face of God" to which one feels attracted, with which there is identification. Therefore if one wishes to project devotion toward Jesus, then that is perfectly appropriate.
Christianity has it's own meditation and ascetic traditions [would LOVE to hear about these if anyone knows?]. However, one can also practice Hatha yoga [or Raja yoga, etc...] with Christ as one's focus of devotion, and even use a favorite Christian phrase, prayer or saying as a mantra [to focus the mind].
elson - 2005-03-14 4:26 PM
I know several Xtns (& myself) who practice various styles or forms of yoga. To the extent that it can be practiced aside from Budhism, asana has no more religious significance than running. Likewise, pranayama.
That which is called yama is understood in a different way by the Xtn, although there is certainly nothing wrong with truthfulness, nonstealing, noncoveting, and such. Concentration and meditation are wonderful things, but of course there are more & less beneficial things to concentrate & meditate on, in Budhism as well as in Xtniaty.
Yoga and Buddhism aren't strictly equivalent. Although there are technical similarities, the main difference is that Buddhism is [strictly speaking] atheistic, and yoga is not. Meaning in Buddhism meditation on or devotional worship of divine beings is not practiced.
Yes there are more or less beneficial things to meditate on in yoga. Your chosen focus need only be agreeable and appropriate. A great master, teacher, saviour, etc... IS.
elson - 2005-03-14 4:26 PM
Samadhi makes a kind of sense to Xtn mystics, but this is difficult to explain.
Would be delighted if someone were to attempt this!
elson - 2005-03-14 4:26 PM
There irreconcilable differences between Xtniaty and all other religions, and any attempt to shoehorn Jesus or His teachings into a Budhist (or any other religion) mold will fail miserably. What Xtns must avoid while practicing yoga is the worship of anything except the Father. Since worship is primarily a matter of intention (in yogic terms :-), not outward actions, this is not difficult to achieve.
Hope I'm not flogging a dead pony here, but in my view, those differences are self-imposed. The point is rather to integrate your devotion and worship of your spiritual ideal(s) into your other yoga practices.
Try it, you'll like it! | |
| | |
| Thank you for the thought-provoking words Christine. Now, keep in mind that Anne Askew suffered among men for all their beliefs in Justification by Faith in Christ. (And yes, witchcraft was often attached to the charges against the men as well, probably not as often as the women, but they got saddled with it. When former Roman Catholic priests (who had converted to favor of the Protestant Reformation) were defrocked prior to being burned during the persecutions under "Bloody Mary," they were forced to wear Satanic caricatures of their priestly garments. The idea was that they were practicing witchcraft---that era's view of witchcraft---and they were humiliated accordingly. Witchcraft was not exclusively charged to women, especially during persecutions of the early Protestants.
We know about Anne Askew, and Anne Boleyn, and scores of others, because men thought so highly of them that they painstakingly backtracked through court documents to compile the accounts of their trials, their interrogations (during which many were tortured), and their profoundly scholarly and faithful ability to declare their faith and argue prelates to a standstill. John Foxe was a man, and we owe his careful catalogue a debt for preserving these documents.
I do not doubt that Anne Askew did in some way emasculate Sir Thomas Moore when she refused to knuckle under. But that doesn't mean that all men are so ego driven as he, nor that men in her same position held their ground less faithfully. Men and women alike suffered during the persecutions, and all manner of evil and loathesome accusations were leveled against them that were untrue and unjust, when their only crimes were refusing to believe in the Eucharist or the sacrosanctity of an externally visible church.
As for prayer, thank you. It's always a good time to pray, so I wouldn't object to prayer at the time you suggested. Like so many Christians, I imitate David's habit and have fellowship with the Lord morning and evening: upon rising and just before retiring. And of course many small prayers go to Him during the day. Of course there have been times in Savasana at the end of class when I do thank Him that He's provided this yoga for me to help regain my flexibility. Or when I'm folding all my laundry from five days a week of practice I remember to thank Him that I'm able to work out again. It feels good to fold clothes that I thought I might never use again.
Because I, like you, have a hard time keeping still, I often use hymns and singing to help me pray. I use the doctrinal hymns that many people grew up with, not the Christian contemporary stuff. I sing with the CDs (off in a room by myself) and that seems to stir my spirit better to pray.
Thank you for the thought-provoking post! | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | jeriwho - 2005-03-30 7:31 PM
Like so many Christians, I imitate David's habit and have fellowship with the Lord morning and evening: upon rising and just before retiring. And of course many small prayers go to Him during the day. Of course there have been times in Savasana at the end of class when I do thank Him that He's provided this yoga for me to help regain my flexibility.
You sound very much like me with "Om nama Sivaya", which starts and ends my practice
of yoga. I thank Siva for yoga whenever I go the mat -- and often while I am on it.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | As a note to all reading this, we've noticed in the past that threads
are automatically frozen at about 8 pages, which we are approaching
on this one.
We can blame Brother Bruce just for laughs. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Sivaram,
you said:
Yoga and Buddhism aren't strictly equivalent. Although there are technical similarities, the main difference is that Buddhism is [strictly speaking] atheistic, and yoga is not. Meaning in Buddhism meditation on or devotional worship of divine beings is not practiced.
I just wanted to add that Tibetan Buddhism has Dieties...all kinds. When I became introduced to Hinduism by my Husband, we found similarities within those dieties and the way they are practiced and worshipped is also similar. Even my Tibetan Guru has commented about this compared to Hinduism. The Dalai Lama also has talked about this. They just say that in order to do a good practice, you need to select one path and stay on it. So, having that said, you are right about Buddhism being atheistic, but if you really think about it, so is Hinduism - I'm sure someone will come along and clarify this better. The priests at the South Indian temple that I go to clearly state that the dieties are only used as visual aids and this is the same concept with Buddhism as well. So, if the dieties are visual aids, and God is in everything...or in the case of Buddha, everyone has Buddha nature, then to put a lable on it and say atheistic would be incorrect too. I really feel that Jesus Christ tried to teach this concept as well, but the minds receiving the information got it all mixed up and taught that God is a seperate entity and that we are not part of that entity. I really, really believe that Jesus Christs' teachings have been totally scattered and altered by higher authorities for control over human beings..its such a waste when you think about all he endured to help mankind for that time period. But the good news is that we are here and we are practicing the dharma, whether it be Christian, Buddhism, Hinduism, whatever. The teachings are basically the same, the people practicing the teachings are what is not the same and I haven't met very many truly dedicated, Christian Bodhisattva's in over 20 years. I see them from time to time in the form of little old lady's who still abide by the code. I just wish that these people would truly live the way Jesus taught, not talk about it on Sunday mornings, but truly live and act the way Jesus taught. Of course, this is probably a common thing amoung all religions and why there is so much conflict. Oh well.
BTW, I would not want to be a witch...I do like witches. Witches are not nice, they play games with people and they are mean. In Nepal they do special poojas for houses with witches, you do not want witches to be around you, they are trouble makers. As for the ones who got burned here in America, most of them were not witches like the true sense of a witch. | |
| | |
| My comments:
Jeri: Thanks for acceptance.
Tourist: You said: Neel, would you also be able to say that all yogis practice Christianity because the yamas and niyamas instruct us to behave in ways that are similar to the teachings of Christ?
===> Dear Tourist, I do not know what is meant by practiciing Christianity exactly means. I mean what I know about its practice, I shall NOT call it so. For example, when you see above statements in the bulletin board, and on TV, and elsewhere, I will not call yama and niyama as Christianity. But, since you are most sincere Yoga person and also possibly interested in Philosophy, like Brother bay guy, and sometimes (!!!) Big Brother Bruce, let me give you the real logic below:
yama and niyamas come from Vedic Times which is 10s of thousands of years old, and which Patanjali put into his sutras very recently in around 300 b.c. All the facets of yama and niyam in Buddhism, which is before Patanjali comes directly from Vedic Literature ( I must make this statement, there is NO single addition of knowledge or realization in Buddhism which is NOT in Vedas. In fact there can not be in any thing after Vedas. This will be a very big topic for later date.). Now, Patanjali Sutras says.. xxx yamah, xxxxetc. and then
jaatideshakaalasamayaavachchinnaaH saarvabhaumaa mahaavratam. that is in real Yoga yama and niyama cross the boundaries of jaati - birth (in animal species, and in humans, qualities of brahmin, vaishya, etc.), kaala - time, samaya - occassion, anavachchinaa - crossing the boundaries.
Due to the above statements, it will be impossible to call yamas and niyamas as Christianity, which is a particular faith. Now, the problem in your question arises from the assumption that Yoga and Christianity are two different things. Your assumption is wrong in Philosophical context, because the core of any spiritual teaching is always the same. Thus, yama and niyama in Yoga may be identical that in Christianity or Christ's teaching. But, due to this fact, Christ becomes Yogi (which he also physicall was, not only philosophically). But, Yogi does not become Christian.
If your assumption is considered correct, that means there is something in Christianity, which defies Yoga (which is true in certain Christian's minds, as you know.) Then, Christianity becomes a limited and wrong view, which I am NOT saying it is wrong. But, it will be wrong if this assumption were to be correct.
So, whether your assumption is incorrect or correct, Yoga precedes the Christianity, Christ was a Yogi, Christinaity instructions match with Yoga yama and niyama, and Yoga can not be avoided on a spiritual path.
NOTE: when I say your assumption, I am not focussed on 'you', I mean jjust the assumption or statement that 'YOGA and Christianity' are two different things.
Now, due to the nature of things, the above logic is valid for 'Buddhism', "Islam", Judaism. As an additional note, I want to tell you one true information, which might surprise you. The world famous Philosopher Aristotle, requested Alexander the Great who invaded India during his conquest of the world, to bring the copy of Shrimad Bhagavadgita (also a summary of Upanishads, which is Vedanta) to Greek as the most authoritative text of Philosophy at that time.
Peace and Love
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
| jeriwho - 2005-03-31 8:31 AM
As for prayer, thank you. It's always a good time to pray, so I wouldn't object to prayer at the time you suggested. Like so many Christians, I imitate David's habit and have fellowship with the Lord morning and evening: upon rising and just before retiring. And of course many small prayers go to Him during the day. Of course there have been times in Savasana at the end of class when I do thank Him that He's provided this yoga for me to help regain my flexibility. Or when I'm folding all my laundry from five days a week of practice I remember to thank Him that I'm able to work out again. It feels good to fold clothes that I thought I might never use again.
Very nice, Jeri. That's really the essence of it.
Whew, long row to hoe.
Happy trails... | |
| | |
| sivaram - 2005-03-30 8:41 PM
Very nice, Jeri. That's really the essence of it.
Whew, long row to hoe.
Happy trails...
Yet if I had NEVER done yoga and had done pilates instead, or tai chi, or just some systematic form of methodical stretching given to me by a physiologist, I would be thanking God just the same for the particular blessing at the particular time that I think about it. Perhaps because I use yoga only as a form of stretching, I can honestly say it has not contributed to my life on that level. I'm thankful for it like I'm thankful for my daily food, but it wasn't the hamburgers that taught me to pray either. Having Christ, I have been given a standing I do not deserve, and that bounty from Him is what prompts me to pray. All the incidentals that evoke thanks from me are just that: incidentals. The source of blessing is Christ. In my opinion. But I will gladly rest my eternal soul on Him.
Jeri | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| >>Witches are not nice, they play games with people and they are mean. In Nepal they do special poojas for houses with witches, you do not want witches to be around you, they are trouble makers.<<
Wow. And someone who shall remain claims I'm judgemental.
This is as harsh and as serious a generalization as saying all Christians believe yogin burn, or that homosexuals are all out to recruit. Unkind and unwarranted.
Being as it is NOT about me, whom I know really doesn't matter. However, I do happen to know many people who follow earth worship in their practice of witchcraft. "What one perpetrates on others, one receives back thricefold." A true practicing witch (which is not what Wicca happens to be, BTW), lives by that and does no harm.
just my opinion
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | jeriwho - 2005-03-30 8:54 PM
sivaram - 2005-03-30 8:41 PM
Very nice, Jeri. That's really the essence of it.
Whew, long row to hoe.
Happy trails...
Yet if I had NEVER done yoga and had done pilates instead, or tai chi, or just some systematic form of methodical stretching given to me by a physiologist, I would be thanking God just the same for the particular blessing at the particular time that I think about it. Perhaps because I use yoga only as a form of stretching, I can honestly say it has not contributed to my life on that level. I'm thankful for it like I'm thankful for my daily food, but it wasn't the hamburgers that taught me to pray either. Having Christ, I have been given a standing I do not deserve, and that bounty from Him is what prompts me to pray. All the incidentals that evoke thanks from me are just that: incidentals. The source of blessing is Christ. In my opinion. But I will gladly rest my eternal soul on Him.
Jeri
But if you are thankful for the yoga, or the food, you are acknowledging that it is of god, no?
And when we acknowledge the godly qualities of the things we do and the things around us,
we are doing yoga. I posted the following once before, but this discussion reminded me
of it. This is Krishna speaking:
Mature in yoga, impartial
everywhere he looks,
he sees himself in all beings
and all beings in himself.
The man who sees me in everything
and everything within me
will not be lost to me, nor
will I ever be lost to him.
He who is rooted in oneness
realizes that I am
in every being: whereever
he goes, he remains in me.
When he sees all beings as equal
in suffering or in joy
because they are like himself,
that man has grown perfect in yoga.
Bhagavad Gita
6:29-32, S. Mitchell's translation
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-03-30 10:19 PM
| |
| | |
| Hi guys. I am new here and I have to admit I got interested as soon as I seen this thread. Some things people should think about. There was a special a while back on the Missing Years of Jesus. I mean the Bible speaks about him from his birth to age 12, then he's not there until age 30. Those are 18 critical years missing! Well it is said that Christ travelled to India and Nepal to study with the masters there. There he learned.....guess what?? YOGA!!! LOL Seriously. I am a Christian and I strongly believe that Christ was influenced by Hindus and Buddhists of the time. That's why early Christianity resembled Buddhism more in it's non-judgemental and peaceful ways than the judgemental and dogmatic religion of Judaism. I believe that Christ studied and mastered yoga to the highest level. Yoga means union with God so why wouldn't Christ study it? That was His life. They said the miracles achieved by Jesus were skils typical of anyone who has mastered the highest form of yoga. I don't know what kind of Yoga that Christ did but I sincerely believed He did it. He was known as Saint Issa in the east. Issa means Jesus. And since yoga is not a religion, it can fit with all religions. So I don't see the conflict at all. | |
| | |
| Sivaram :-)
Yes, the differences between Christianity and other religions are _exactly_ self-imposed; self-imposed by our God. In our scriptures, our God unequivocably claims to be the _only_ God, and our religion to be the only true religion. So our belief is that there is only one God, and that He is exactly as described in the bible. Likewise, we believe in one heaven, one hell, one cosmology, one afterlife, one thing called salvation, and one process whereby that salvation is granted to persons.
So at the core of our religion is the insistance that God is as He is described in the bible, and only that. To us, God cannot have other names, or other characters, or other teachings, &etc. It is impossible to us that our God is the same God described in any other religion (except Judiasm, but that's another story :-).
As far as core religious matters go, we are prohibited from adopting any religious beliefs that are not either explicitly taught in the bible, or are a necessary result of those teachings.
This is what Jeri & I mean by historic Christianity. So she & I cannot believe in nirvana or Shiva or that we are all part of God, etc, because these doctrines conflict with what we believe to be absolute Truth. I am so very NOT God! Not even God's fingernail :-).
But I _am_ a child of God, and that is a wonderful thing indeed :-).
That said, we can admire and receive with delight, philosophies or tools that lead to beauty and freedom. I am tickled pink by meditation, because it has given me greater control over my restless mind. Meditation techniques allow me to pray and adore Jesus with greater focus, concentration, and stillness.
The difference is that meditation is not a doctrine, but a tool.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Hello PeonyDancer,
My comment about witches had nothing to do with being judgemental....and I do believe that you were referring to WICCANS and I was referring to WITCHES...big difference. I also made reference to the Wiccans that got burned and crucified in the US and Europe...not the same as witches, that I was referring to as being mean, playing games with people and being troublemakers. There are some people that claim to be a Witch, when in fact, they are not actually a Witch, they are Wiccans You should study and inquire about the true Witches, it is very interesting. | |
| | |
| Neel, you can call Jesus a yogi if you wish. He was certainly a Master and a teacher. But let's not imply that He gave any credence to any vedic beliefs, because that would contradict the evidence contained in the eye-witness accounts of His life. This thinking especially conflicts with His own words.
So if you respect Jesus for anything, then you have something of a puzzle. Since he made it totally clear that He was God Himself in the flesh, according to His Jewish theology, then I suppose he was either lying about that, or he was insane. The other possibility is that He was exactly who He said that He was.
Sound reasonable? | |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2005-03-30 10:14 PM
But if you are thankful for the yoga, or the food, you are acknowledging that it is of god, no?
And when we acknowledge the godly qualities of the things we do and the things around us,
we are doing yoga.
Well, again, if you define "yoga" in such broad terms as that, then by your definition it cannot be argued. But my view of the thanksgiving that I offer is that Christ is the cause of it. Perhaps I am mistaken, but from what I gather from this thread, the spiritual side of yoga is seeking an accrual of good deeds, directed concentration, meditation, etc., to spiritually uplift or enlighten the soul. But Christianity, as I have defined it, recognizes that Christ has done that for us.
What you view as causative, we view as an after effect. I am thankful, not because I am on my way to being enlightened or enobled, but because a position of righteousness and acceptance with God has already been given to me in Christ. Living by faith, I experience His nature and His mind in my life. And that nature is expressed in thankfulness, prayerfulness, joy, etc.
Jeri | |
| | |
| The Len - 2005-03-30 11:21 PM
Hi guys. I am new here and I have to admit I got interested as soon as I seen this thread. Some things people should think about. There was a special a while back on the Missing Years of Jesus. I mean the Bible speaks about him from his birth to age 12, then he's not there until age 30. Those are 18 critical years missing! Well it is said that Christ travelled to India and Nepal to study with the masters there. There he learned.....guess what?? YOGA!!! LOL Seriously.
Christ never deviated from explaining the Old Testament to those hwo listened to Him.. He never acknowledged yoga or anythng else. If you understand the New Testament, you also see that his listeners expected Him to remain clean according to the Law, and He did so. (That's why it astounded people when He would have gone into the home of the centurion. To enter the dwelling of a gentile would have defiled Christ according to the Law.) the Lord Jesus clearly declared that He had been expressly sent to Israel, and that was where He would minister.
Specualtions that He wandered off into other countries for years to learn that to which He never referred and which would have polluted Him in the eyes of His countrymen are just that---mere speculation that springs from a lack of understanding of the systematic thoroughness with which the Law governed such things and the expectations of His culture.
I am a Christian and I strongly believe that Christ was influenced by Hindus and Buddhists of the time. That's why early Christianity resembled Buddhism more in it's non-judgemental and peaceful ways than the judgemental and dogmatic religion of Judaism.
Christ spoke of Hell far more than He spoke of Heaven. He condemned the Pharisees, to Hell, repeatedly. His final words before He was judged by the Sanhedrin were a prophecy of destruction upon the Sanhedrin. The New Testament lays down rules to excommunicate and expel those who refuse to comply with church authority, and anybody who denies the eternal sonship of Christ is expressly under ban from fellowship in CHristian churches. Paul directs that a man be "delivered to Satan" for the sin of gross fornication. Christianity, in its earliest days, tooled itself to be focused on Christ as our only Savior. It is an exclusive religion at its very root. Christianity teaches that any person can be saved, but that salvation is through Christ alone. It teaches thatt those in whom God works come too Christ as repentant sinners.
I think your views stem from faddish ideas, but not from any real scholarship or knowledge of what Christ actually taught or the role He had come to fulfill. There's nothing Buddhist or Hindu about what Christ taught. He came to reconcile His people to God, His father. And He accomplished that. In my opinion.
Jeri | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | jeriwho - 2005-03-31 6:00 AM
Well, again, if you define "yoga" in such broad terms as that, then by your definition it cannot be argued. But my view of the thanksgiving that I offer is that Christ is the cause of it. Perhaps I am mistaken, but from what I gather from this thread, the spiritual side of yoga is seeking an accrual of good deeds, directed concentration, meditation, etc., to spiritually uplift or enlighten the soul. But Christianity, as I have defined it, recognizes that Christ has done that for us.
Jeri
No, Jeri, that's too simple. Yoga has its roots in Hinduism, and personally I find it a bit
artificial to try to completely separate the "spirituality" of yoga from Hindu concepts of the
divine. It's in the latter that the real difference, and friction, between yoga and
Christianity is to be found.
Within Hindu or Yogic thought, god pervades everything and all of us. It is only
our own problems and muddy thinking (avidya and the other kleshas) that prevent us
realizing this fact in its entirity. The ultimate goal of yoga is to free oneself of such
afflications and of all the baggage of past action (karma...it's a real term with specific
meaning, not a phrase from southern California...). Once that is done, over the course
many lifetimes for most of us, we realize our oneness with god (in this context, sometimes
called Ishvara...Neel gave a very thoughtful exposition of divinity and diety in Hinduism
a couple of months ago, down in the general mediation forum).
The Hindu concept of god does not involve salvation in any sense. This god is largely
passive with respect to human affairs and cannot be thought of as imposing a set of
rules on us poor humans. The various rules of conduct from the Yoga Sutras,
the Yamas and Niyamas, are designed to help us free ourselves from kleshas and to
avoid creating additional karmas so that we can eventually recognize god within ourselves,
Brahman (not Bramha).
As was mentioned at points above, yoga asanas are tool for reaching this awareness of
god and for stilling the human passions that separate us from that knowledge. Asanas
(or poses) are one of eight steps in Raja Yoga (which I'm not going into now b/c I need
to hurry and get offline). There are other paths of yoga, such as the path of devotion
or Bhakti yoga, which are intended to lead to the same result. Hatha yoga is a subset
of Raja yoga dealing primarily with physical practices -- asana and pranayama in particular.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that I object to the occasional characterization of yoga
as just new-agey self-realization, stretching, and relaxation. Lots of people use Hatha
yoga for that purpose without any awareness of its broader intent, but that's not the
whole story. Gotta run.
| |
| | |
| Any time someone makes sweeping generalizations about a group, it is being judgemental.
If you add humanity into anything, there are bound to be goods and bads. I'm sure you ran into what you consider to be bads. Frankly, given the generalizations made, I'd be tempted to play games and be a troublemaker with you, too.
Witches are an interesting breed, and inquiring is not necessary. I have several in my world, who are part of very interesting, altruistic covens. This is one of the reasons I refuse to let such a broad generalization sweep by.
I also have more than several Wiccan friends. Friends with families being raised in this faith.
I do know the difference and know that it is wrong, unfair and narrow minded to cram every practitioner into your generalization.
Just as it is wrong to cram every Christian into the stereotype of being narrow minded, judgemental, and frightened.
So there you have it.
Jeriwho, you called the idea that Jesus travelled to be "faddish.?" I'm not learned enough in the life of Jesus to know where the fundamental Christian (and I don't mean fundamentalist, but basic) doctrine states he was. Or is this one of the Mysteries.
The LDS faith states he travelled, too. They state he visited places like the indians in the Americas and claim there are carvings that substantiate this. This is offered in the "newest" gospel being the book of Morman. Would you consider this to be "faddish?" I realize it isn't recognized by conventional Christianity....
Christine | |
| | |
| Well, if you accept extra-biblical "revelations," we would just have to agree to disagree. The New Testament Gospels were written by four men, three of whom personally witnessed the ministry of the Lord Jesus. The fourth writer, Luke, took it onto himself to research what was still extant about the life of Christ in order to make an end-to-end documentation of what Christ did (and what He had not done) in order to present His life to the Greeks.
From the agreement of these four writers, we see that Christ's ministry was to the nation of Israel, even though that ministry was used to announce that salvation had come to all men. Christ clearly says He has been sent to the nation of Israel and not to any other nation. Furthermore, when the Lord took up the Scripture in the synagogue of His own town and read them, He caused a lot of confusion and anger when He declared that He was the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy of the Messiah. The towns people who knew Him exclaimed, "Is this not the carpenter's son?" an exclamation that shows first, He was well known to them, and second, His life had been entirely unremarkable. He was not a world traveler returning to make a triumphal declaration. He was the kid from around the corner who made a startling announcement.
The Lord Jesus was not a cosmopolitan world traveler who saw other lands. There is no record from his followers at all that He ever visited India or any other country. He was remarked upon for being extremely ordinary. Isaiah prophecied that there would be nothing about Christ to commend Him as extraordinary, and certainly traveling that far and returning would have been quite extraordinary, especially to people who would have declared Him unclean after visiting Gentiles and living in a Gentile country.
No credible documentation exists to show that He ever left Israel, and His own repeated declarations that He had come to minister to the nation of Israel and be rejected by her leaders shows that He had no reason to leave Israel. He explicitly said that He had NOT come to minister to other nations during his lifetime. His perfect grasp of the Law at the age of 12 shows that He had no need to go anywhere else to rebuke the leaders of Israel for twisting the Law, and His expertise at that young age shows that He was fit to open the Scripture to the common people. But that's what Christ did: He taught the Law, the Old Testament, to the people in the way it was intended to be taught. That's what He said He was doing. That's what the Apostle Paul says Christ did. That's why the Pharisees hated Him so much, and that was why He rebuked them so often.
If people want to presupose that every possible statement is inherently credible, then I can't stop them. But there is a lack of credibility and evidence to support these assertions. There is no more evidence in the Bible that the Lord Jesus went to India or America than there is that He invented fire engines, and there are certainly abundant statements that show that He did not.
The LDS/Mormon account of Christ has changed so much since the sect was founded that I think they have pretty thoroughly discredited themselves. They have split into four subgroups, each with differing doctrines. Currently, the largest sub group of LDS/Mormonism is working to get back to a more mainstream view of Christ and Christianity. I think they will always be distinnctively a group called LDS, but they have made the Book of Mormon a lot less prominent.
Jeri | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | YogaDancer - 2005-03-31 8:35 AM
Jeriwho, you called the idea that Jesus travelled to be "faddish.?" I'm not learned enough in the life of Jesus to know where the fundamental Christian (and I don't mean fundamentalist, but basic) doctrine states he was. Or is this one of the Mysteries.
The LDS faith states he travelled, too. They state he visited places like the indians in the Americas and claim there are carvings that substantiate this. This is offered in the "newest" gospel being the book of Morman. Would you consider this to be "faddish?" I realize it isn't recognized by conventional Christianity....
Christine
This again goes back to the point that doctrine is a selective and interpretive reading of
the scriptural and historical record. LDS are probably excluded from the "historical
christian" category. The Gospel of Thomas was omitted from current "bible".
Paul's writings (eg, from above "Paul directs that a man be 'delivered to Satan' for the sin
of gross fornication.") are well known to impose a severity of observance not so evident in
earlier books, and they have, by reputation, an anti-female bias. While some may
choose to take the bible as only document relevant to christianity, it's clear that other
christians don't similarly limit themselves and that the historical record is richer.
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-03-31 12:04 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | jeriwho - 2005-03-31 11:54 AM
The LDS/Mormon account of Christ has changed so much since the sect was founded that I think they have pretty thoroughly discredited themselves.
Jeri
Really, Jeri, this is a fundamentalist write-off of the LDS. I doubt that the LDS ever wanted
to have credibility with with the strict bible churches.
| |
| | |
| Bay Guy said,
So, I guess what I'm saying is that I object to the occasional characterization of yoga
as just new-agey self-realization, stretching, and relaxation. Lots of people use Hatha
yoga for that purpose without any awareness of its broader intent, but that's not the
whole story.
But it's the whole story for me, because I only take yoga as far as stretching. This is like the gentleman who asked me about my opinion if he were to use the Bible only as a pillow. Now, I believe the Bible is the Word of God. But if a man were to use it only as a pillow, then clearly it would be grossly incorrect to look at his actions and say, "Well, he did that good work because he uses the Bible." His use of the Bible as a pillow would have nothing to do with any good work that he does. If he's using the Bible only as a pillow, two things are true: 1) He's free to use it as a pillow if that's all he wants to do with it, and 2) it will not benefit him in any way other than as a pillow, no matter how powerful its message.
Ditto with me and people who choose this method. We don't take yoga for a spiritual purpose but rather for physical therapy. That's why, as a Christian, I am free to do yoga. It means no more to me spiritually than the Bible would mean to a man who uses it only as a pillow. It's a tool. It's not my faith.
I'm sure there is a broader story to yoga, and if you want to follow that story, that's up to you.
You are right when you comment on the Hindu idea that God pervades all of us. Christians (using the term as I have defined that) don't believe this. We believe that God made us as separate and distinct individuals, and that our standing as creatures made in the image of God enables us to surrender to His will, as the Son surrendered to the will of the Father. But the individuality is what gives us dignity, for God welcomes us to His table and we converse with Him as separate individuals, having opinions and experiences that we bring to Him. God is my Master, of course, but it is also true that Christ didn't save me to make me a part of God like an appendix or even His heart. Christ is my friend, and I am His friend. I will know Him face to face and have fellowship with Him. It is the individuality of each human being that we regard as an expression of God's personality and His love for us. I hope that explains it.
Jeri | |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2005-03-31 12:04 PM
Really, Jeri, this is a fundamentalist write-off of the LDS. I doubt that the LDS ever wanted
to have credibility with with the strict bible churches.
Which LDS group are you talking about?
Jeri | |
| | |
| You guys, I just got this from a student.
If you don't like it, just change the label!!!!!
In this article, the woman states that her husband said, "Well, praise moves God." Sure it's out of context, but (read the article) consider that statement.
It tells me that with any luck, God can be flattered, therefore manipulated. Yeah!!!
I'm in luck, since promises and bargains never seemed to work.
(If you can't find the sarcasm there, you're not listening.)
Anyway, check this out: http://www.praisemoves.com/ChristianAlternative.htm
Christine
Edited by YogaDancer 2005-03-31 12:49 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | YogaDancer - 2005-03-31 12:31 PM
You guys, I just got this from a student.
If you don't like it, just change the label!!!!!
In this article, the woman states that her husband said, "Well, praise moves God." Sure it's out of context, but (read the article ) consider that statement.
It tells me that with any luck, God can be flattered, therefore manipulated. Yeah!!!
I'm in luck, since promises and bargains never seemed to work.
(If you can't find the sarcasm there, you're not listening. )
Anyway, check this out: http://www.praisemoves.com/ChristianAlternative.htm
Christine
Need to edit your original post, Christine, the hyperlink is trashed.
| |
| | |
| YogaDancer - 2005-03-31 12:31 PM
You guys, I just got this from a student.
If you don't like it, just change the label!!!!!
In this article, the woman states that her husband said, "Well, praise moves God." Sure it's out of context, but (read the article ) consider that statement.
It tells me that with any luck, God can be flattered, therefore manipulated. Yeah!!!
I'm in luck, since promises and bargains never seemed to work.
(If you can't find the sarcasm there, you're not listening. )
Anyway, check this out: http://www.praisemoves.com/ChristianAlternative.htm
Christine
HAHAHAHAH! Well, I guess she's in it just for the love of God; self promotion has nothing to do with it.... Sorry to earnest yoga practitioners for this glaring plagiarism of your sytems, but the people who said Rock music was evil and then brought you Christian Contemporary music, and that afternoon cartoons were evil and then brought you Veggi Tales, and that romance novels were evil and then produced the endless pioneer/frontier Christian romances, are now saying that yoga is evil, so here is the Christian alternative.
This Christian will continue breathing and stretching in her Bikram yoga class. Some Christians used to say the same thing about why martial arts was wicked to study. In fact, they said a lot of the exact same things about it that this lady is saying about Hatha yoga. And it all comes to the same end---wind. I think it's pretty clear that yoga has not diminished the faith in Christ of those who hold that faith dear and study the Scripture. | |
| | |
| The praisemoves postures depicted in the website look identical to hatha yoga asanas. Though she is quite eloquent, her viewpoint is no different from Pat's.
I guess the postures have been designed exclusively from the "Christian" point of view so that the poses take the practioner closer to Christ.
How is that different from Yoga again?
Why are they so afraid of Yoga? Is their belief so brittle and their God so unforgiving that they are in such constant fear. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | The difference is probably in the names of the asanas.
So Hanumanasana becomes Jeremiahasana, Kapilasana
becomes Hezekiahasana, etc.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| I couldn't read the whole thing... I tried, but I couldn't. First of all, the woman at the top looks like she is insane or perhaps demonic. Second of all, she is just ticked that she isn't making any $$ out of the yoga boom! | |
| | |
| tourist - 2005-04-01 9:18 AM
I couldn't read the whole thing... I tried, but I couldn't. First of all, the woman at the top looks like she is insane or perhaps demonic. Second of all, she is just ticked that she isn't making any $$ out of the yoga boom!
I must admit my reaction was similar at first, and yeah, seem's likely some jealousy there. Well, she was a yoga teacher for some time after all, and obviously she got some benefit before the 700 Club makeover.
I've heard fear like this: http://www.praisemoves.com/ChristianAlternative.htm
one may be “oppressed” by demonic influences.
expressed by students, who've heard it from their church leaders, not realizing that statements like this:
Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being… If anyone says to you, ‘This was offered to idols,’ do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake…not your own, but that of the other… not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved”
are perfectly compatible with the teachings of yoga.
Her editorial is clearly slanted, especially the way yoga is lumped together with new age...whatever...
Christianity sometimes resembles a very successful marketing campaign (a friend of mine once opined it's the biggest MLM organization on the planet). People with something to sell always have a slant.
But then, let's face it. As this thread amply demonstrates, many people simply express a tendency toward difference, exclusion and identifying "others', us vs. them, I-ness mine-ness... ad nauseum. I think it's pointless to protest too much against this, however much I personally disagree. I'll agree to disagree.
The fact is, not everyone will be open to yogic practices. C'est la vie. [Not contradicting Neel... in fact I see all life as spiritual practice/progression toward union]. Just saying, I myself don't take on the role of proseletysing evangelist.
In her own way Laurette may be doing a lot of good. She'll certainly be able to reach out to and help many people who are of a similar mindset. And if she can adapt yoga asanas to help people avoid or overcome their suffering, it's for the best. Obviously one possible downside is more rigidity, but not a whole lot to be done about that, other than try to live another example IMHO.
Edited by sivaram 2005-03-31 10:05 PM
| |
| | |
| Dear Elson wrote the following:
Neel, you can call Jesus a yogi if you wish. He was certainly a Master and a teacher. But let's not imply that He gave any credence to any vedic beliefs, because that would contradict the evidence contained in the eye-witness accounts of His life. This thinking especially conflicts with His own words.
So if you respect Jesus for anything, then you have something of a puzzle. Since he made it totally clear that He was God Himself in the flesh, according to His Jewish theology, then I suppose he was either lying about that, or he was insane. The other possibility is that He was exactly who He said that He was.
Sound reasonable?
===> My reasoning: Vedic statements do NOT require Christ's support to prove. They were proven thousands of years before Jesus Christ was born. Also, they do not need any proof support. Because they were made out of experience, so they were statements of the proof, which do not need to be proven later. Next, if Christ says anything whcih contradicts the Vedic Statements, that will be a blasphemy. And, I know for sure that he did NO such a thing. Also, it is beyond doubt that he practiced yoga, learnt Yoga and also preached his realization in his own language, NOT in English, but in the dialect of that time. Also, what he preached is NOT practiced mostly. Again, if you say that Christ means the God in Flesh form, and NOT in Spirit, that Flesh is gone now. That means the flesh does NOT exist. This will mean God does not exist. Does this sound reasonable to you?
And, I am not respecting Christ for what he said. I am respecting him for what he did. He did study Yoga, practiced it, and demonstrated to people that one can love others unconditionally. That is what I respect him for. Same with the Vedas, I do not respect them only for the statements. But, for the Rishis who actually got the realizations by the practices mentioned there, where one can practice them and get those experiences, exactly like Jeriwho gets in flexibility by performing Stretching Part of Yoga. Now, those who do not practice the other part, whill NOT get that experience, and can only make hollow statements about them.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-03-31 11:09 PM
And, I am not respecting Christ for what he said. I am respecting him for what he did. He did study Yoga, practiced it, and demonstrated to people that one can love others unconditionally. That is what I respect him for. Same with the Vedas, I do not respect them only for the statements. But, for the Rishis who actually got the realizations by the practices mentioned there, where one can practice them and get those experiences, exactly like Jeriwho gets in flexibility by performing Stretching Part of Yoga. Now, those who do not practice the other part, whill NOT get that experience, and can only make hollow statements about them.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org
Well put, Brother Neel.
I am often mystified when Christians practice Christ's statement "Love thy neighbor as
thyself" as if it applies within the nave of one's church, but not while on a crowded subway
train. (Of course, such things happen in other religions, as well.)
And using just one part of a system of knowledge without trying to understand the rest
does not give you a sound basis from which to render opinions on the system.
| |
| | |
| sivaram - 2005-03-31 9:53 PM
But then, let's face it. As this thread amply demonstrates, many people simply express a tendency toward difference, exclusion and identifying "others', us vs. them, I-ness mine-ness... ad nauseum.
Hmm, good thing you're way beyond all that. But the problem with what she is doing---from a Christian perspective---is that she has brought marketing into Christianity under the guise of offering something that has now been "purified"from other influences. That's an old shell game in religous circles. As a Christian, (one of those exclusionary kind who believes that salvation rests in Christ alone), I cringe when I see this sort of stuff because it is nothing other than marketing, and the salesman's gimmick is religion.
The Christian Book Association (which is a conglomerate of mostly evangelical publishers) has just about destroyed serious religious publication in the USA because it has created a distribution network that first catered to fads and then started creating them. And this "praisemoves" is just one more. It has nothing to do with being a Christian. As the Lord Jesus said, It isn't what goes into a man that defiles him, but "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; they defile the man." Working your way through yoga postures and breathing effectively has nothing to do with the sin that so easily works outward from the heart, and there's no exercise cure for that, only Christ. In my opinion.
Jeri | |
| | |
| Neel, how do you _know_ that Jesus never said anything that contradicts Vedic Statements? Have you read His words?
And why do you think that Jesus practiced yoga? Did He practice asana? When? With whom? Wouldn't it be rather strange for a Jewish Rabbi to practice yoga?
If you are basing your ideas about Jesus on quaint stories made up centuries after His death, you won't get very far convincing me. For contrast to those fairy tales, consider that the bible has the eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life, and is the most attested ancient work in existence.
Your reasoning about the Incarnation of God into flesh as Jesus is not good, but can be improved :-). If you are interested, I can explain it, but it is complicated, and will take awhile. For now, it is sufficient to say that the divine Jesus, one of the three persons of the One God, added to His divine nature a human nature, through being born into the world as a man. While He was here, He was no less God than before or after, and yet He wore the body of a man, and indeed, became a mere man, while still being fully God, the infinite unbounded spirit. Yeah. Complicated :-).
Finally, if you do not respect Jesus for what He taught, then there is no need to assign any goodness to the man at all - just forget Him. Alternately, if you are going to respect Him, then you need to think about His words, because action originates in the mind, and the mind from which Jesus' actions came is worth understanding.
Cheers.................Dale | |
| | |
| >> And using just one part of a system of knowledge without trying to understand the rest does not give you a sound basis from which to render opinions on the system.
INDEED!!! Very well said!!
So, let me gently assert to the kula, that if anyone is going to claim to have some regard for Jesus as a man, a teacher, or whatever, then they should exercise some intellectual honesty & attempt to come to terms with what Jesus taught.
Cheers! | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2005-03-31 11:09 PM
And, I am not respecting Christ for what he said. I am respecting him for what he did. He did study Yoga, practiced it, and demonstrated to people that one can love others unconditionally. That is what I respect him for.
He never practiced yoga; there is no evidence that he did, and until you can show evidence that he did, the very notion shows that you have failed to read what Christ DID say about His ministry. He said that He had come to bring division, to turn parent against child and brother against brother. He demonstrated that God can love a sinner unconditionally, and that God can forgive any sin, for He identified Himself expressly as God, but He also said that it was impossible for any human being to please God, unless God made it possible for that person.
Again, if you say that Christ means the God in Flesh form, and NOT in Spirit, that Flesh is gone now. That means the flesh does NOT exist. This will mean God does not exist. Does this sound reasonable to you?
Again, your statement shows that you have not read the accounts of Christ. He rose from the dead and ascended, in His flesh, to heaven, and He still lives in that resurrected flesh, a conqueror over the power of the flesh, pleading with God on the behalf of His people. His flesh did not see corruption, because Christ did not sin. This Resurrection is the core of our Christian faith, and our hope and expectation is that at the end of time, we will also be resurrected with sinless bodies such as He now bears. That is the Christian teaching, and that is the Bible's account of Christ. Witnesses attested to both events (Resurrection and ascension), and they were willing to go to horrible deaths before they would change their accounts of what they saw. You still may dispute the documentation, but it does exist, and there is no documentation for what you are saying.
The purpose of Christ on earth was to conquer sin in His people and redeem them to God, not to show that sinful man has the power to do anything. Sinful man doesn't have the power to do anything to please God. That's why sinful people need Christ. That's what He taught, perhaps best encapsulated in His declaration, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
You don't have to like what He taught, and you don't have to agree with it, but we have an account from three witnesses and one historian on what He actually did say and teach, and none of them agree with your version of His mission.
Jeri | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Is it just me, or has this discussion gotten a bit warm?
Jeriwho, I completely agree with your comments about commercialism in religion,
and about the general difficulty in finding serious writing and publication in the
area. Apart from the money to be made by soft pedalling the issues, it's hard for
people to have serious discussion of a subject that evokes such strong feelings
so the easy path is not to deal with substantive issues.
I'll give everyone here tons of credit for trying to work with facts and for taking on
the harder questions.
| |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2005-04-02 8:44 PM
Is it just me, or has this discussion gotten a bit warm?
I was thinking perhaps a bit "ripe"
tourist - 2005-03-31 10:55 PM
A funny example - when my kids were little, we were driving somewhere and I had a coffee or juice or something that I was drinking. One of them told me very solemnly that I was not supposed to drink and drive
Possibly the choicest morsel here... Made my day.
| |
| | |
| Dear Guest and Elson:
1. How do I know that Jesus Christ practiced Yoga? Did he do Asana, pranayama, etc.?
===> That is exactly what JeriWho agreed and stated. That your limited understanding of Yoga. Practicing Yoga does not mean only these two. Now, I am not in a position to teach all that Yoga has to do. You can feel free to get this information from whichever resources you prefer which are Thousands in Number, NOT just one book. If you know what Yoga means, you will definitely understand and agree that he did Practice Yoga.
2. About Bible:
===> Bible is NOT the Christ Words. Real Christ words are the Sermon on the Mount. Bible can be words of his devotees who said what he told them. And, therefore, there are contradictions in them. Because, if only one perrson wrote this book, there can not be contradictions in that one book. Now, these contradictions are ONLY in words, and methods of paths. And, because NO single method in the material world will be same for two persons. One may drink water from a glass, anoher from a cup, and third one from the palms. All drink the water to satisfy the thirst and it is satisfied no matter. The contradictions disappear as one follows whatever and then reaches the Realization. So, clinging to just words and with their interpretations, does not make sense unless one actualy practices them and brings forth the realization in them.
3. Jesus Resurrection, coming in Flesh and ALL these:
===> This is NOT the first time in the history of mankind this has happened. There have been thousands before Christ who did this, and some of the lives have been much more profound and exhaulted than that of the Jesus Christ, in that respect. So, that part does not surprise me or impress me. For your knowledge, without being free to discuss, I can assure you that I have myself seen at least one life with my own eyes, which has been as exalted as that of Jesus Christ. So, I am not guessing. I feel fortunate to get that opportunity in my life. If you want to see my bio: see www.authenticyoga.org and click on Neel Kulkarni.
4. I think that this thread has done enough for me, because what limited I could participate is done. More will be friction, and I wish to love all of you.
Peace and Love
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
| 1) Is that it? Is that all you've got? I'm disappointed. I thought that maybe you had a reasoned argument based on facts to back up your assertion. But I guess not.
2) Your words are pretty, but they have nothing to do with the question. You state that the bible is not Jesus' words, but then you say that _some_ of the words in the bible are Jesus' words. How is it that you are able to decide which are His words and which are not? What makes you the expert, and two thousand years of Xtns wrong about their religion? Since the Pope is dying, maybe you should apply for the position & straighten us out about that. In fact, maybe you should rewrite the bible so that it is more accurate. Then you could edit the Koran and maybe the Hindu texts as well.
Oh, and there are no contradictions in the bible. If you think that you have found one, let me know.
3) You have seen one life that has been as exalted as the life of Jesus. Wow! And this guy did better than being born of a virgin, founding a major religion, opening the way for man to approach God directly, atone for the sins of those who would believe, get crucified, stay dead for three days, be resurrected on the third day & appear to more than 500 of His followers in the next 40 days, walk thru walls, heal tens of thousands of sick people, raise the dead, walk on water, give sight to the blind, command the weather, and then ascend to the heavens to sit at the right hand of God the father almighty? Cool!!! What's he doing now?
4) Running away so soon? But we could have had _much_ more fun. | |
| | |
| So let me get this straight: we are wrong, and you know we are wrong, but you are not at liberty to explain why we are wrong or to show that we are wrong. We're just wrong.
4. I think that this thread has done enough for me, because what limited I could participate is done. More will be friction, and I wish to love all of you.
I hope for you to love me too, and I hope that love abounds across the earth. But I still insist that claims must be supported by either facts or text or sound reasoning.
In the end, what we can conclude is that yes, Christians who comply with Historic, Protestant Christianity can participate in yoga and retain their own strong, narrow minded, intolerant views that Christ and Christ alone is their salvation. We shall be doomed to narrowmindedness in our focus on Christ alone, but by thunder, we shall have stretched hamstrings!
And that's all I want from yoga!
Jeri | |
| | |
| Jerri Wrote:
In the end, what we can conclude is that yes, Christians who comply with Historic, Protestant Christianity can participate in yoga and retain their own strong, narrow minded, intolerant views that Christ and Christ alone is their salvation. We shall be doomed to narrowmindedness in our focus on Christ alone, but by thunder, we shall have stretched hamstrings!
And that's all I want from yoga!
===> This I agree with Jeri fully, 100 percent. And, for this I love Jeri, too.
As for Guest: What you mentioned Jesus Did you your above post, I know a number of examples. There is NO exception in Jesus's case out of these examples. Next, I may have had language problem in stating about Bible. What I am saying is : Bible contains writings of various persons who stated what jesus told, so there are contradictions/differences. I do not wish to re-wrrite Bible, because that will worsen the situation. Anyway, if you think I am running away, I happy that you feel so, because I do want to from this thread, as neither I have anything to contribute further, neither there is anything beneficial to me further from others. I love you, too.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
| This login thing is annoying. Apparently I have been posting as "Guest" tha last couple of days. Sorry.
Anyway, Neel, you say that the bible was written by many men, and so it contains differences or contrasictions. In fact, the entire bible was essentially dictated by one person, God. He spoke at different times through different persons, who, through a wonderful process, ended up writing down exactly what God wanted said. You are obviously not required to believe that, of course. It cannot be proven.
What _can_ be proven is if there are errors of fact or contradictions in the bible. You say that there are, and I called you on it. Now have the intellectual honesty to either produce your contradiction, or admit that you do not know of any, and are just repeating what you have heard.
I admit that I occasionally believe things that I have not proven for myself, especially if they are said by someone that I like or trust. But if I am to truely seek the Truth, then I must be willing to discard ideas that do not prove true. I am sure that you agree. | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2005-04-02 11:45 PM
Bible contains writings of various persons who stated what jesus told, so there are contradictions/differences. I do not wish to re-wrrite Bible, because that will worsen the situation. Anyway, if you think I am running away, I happy that you feel so, because I do want to from this thread, as neither I have anything to contribute further, neither there is anything beneficial to me further from others.
You say the Bible is full of errors (but fail to produce any), but then how can you say the Hindu writings are error-free? I have shown that there is a unity in the Bible about the mission of Christ to come to the nation of Israel as her Messiah, fuflfill the Law perfectly and prove His annointing as the Messiah, be rejected by the nation, be made an offering for the sins of the world, and rise again to be our victory over death, sin, and judgement. I have shown from this unity that leaving Israel to venture to any Gentile country would have been completely out of the question for any prophet of Israel, especially Christ. All the prophecies of Him show that He would be sent to Israel as her prophet, priest, and king, and He also made these claims about Himself, and the witnesses agree about this matter.
You still have no answer, no proof to the contrary, only an insistence that the Bible is wrong and you are right. But if you dismiss the Bible because it's ancient and had many pens put to it, how much more could we conclude that the Vedas are filled with error? And how much more is it plain that you are full of error when you make pronouncments about a religion you don't understand and refuse to research?
If mere men are certainly flawed, then your conclusions are as fallacious as anything with which you charge us, because your conclusions are built on the speculations and reasonings of men who contributed to a theology of Hinduism.
You're weighing with two separate measures. You let yourself off on the very charges you lay at the feet of those who revere the Bible as an authoritative text.
You lack intellectual honesty, and you are even intolerant, as you are actually insisting that you have received a light that others have not received, and your way is infallible while others are flawed.
It isn't lack of love to tell you that you are incorrect if you really are incorrect, sir. And you are. You can probably frame a more convincing argument, but you have not done so. Making more and more unproved and sweeping assertions to favor your own side just digs the hole deeper.
Jeri | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Dear me....we cannot possibly arrive at any resolution of the question of
whether particular scriptures have got divine origins (e.g., god working
through men). You either believe it or you don't. Any, on the question of
contradictions in scripture, it's a topic that scholars, proponents, and opponents
of particular beliefs have debated endlessly. I don't suppose that we
can do much more than annoy each other with that set of issues.
I'd suggest keeping an open mind for all points of view. To me, this means
allowing for the possibility that additional discussion and information may
change your religious views, while at the same time trusting that if your views
are sound nothing will undo them.
| |
| | |
| Well said, BG.
To quote a very famous person, "Can't we all just get along"
Jeri, your deep faith is commendable. Your path in yoga would be called "Bhakti Yoga" where your devotion (or bhakti in sanskrit) and faith are unshakeable. That's probably why you seem to enjoy yoga without being disturbed by its spiritial and philosophical underpinnings unike some other devout "Christians".
In another thread you have said that you also believe in the benefits of traditional chinese medicine and acupuncture. Acupuncture serves to unblock Qi energy (prana in yoga) and in so doing boosts the immune system which aids in self-healing. Just curious if you believe in Qi (or prana) and if not how you reconcile your interest in TCM with your self confessed "exclutionary" religious outlook.
Thnx. | |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2005-04-04 12:09 PM
I'd suggest keeping an open mind for all points of view. To me, this means
allowing for the possibility that additional discussion and information may
change your religious views, while at the same time trusting that if your views
are sound nothing will undo them.
I agree with that assessment. It's misinformation and sweeping assertions that raise my objections. If somebody says "I don't believe the Bible," well, that's fine by me. I cannot create faith in the person. But if somebody says "I put this measuring stick to the Bible and found it invalid," yet that person fails to measure his or her own Scriptures by that measuring stick, then we've lost an honest discussion. Tolerance is a wonderful thing, but glib statatements, misquotes, and generalizations are not the same thing as toleration and respect.
Jeri | |
| | |
| HotYogi - 2005-04-04 12:33 PM
To quote a very famous person, "Can't we all just get along"
Actually, we are getting along, but we are disagreeing on points of comparison. It surely cannot be a tenet of any major religion that disagreement and pointing out fallacies in thought processes must be avoided at all costs. That's not Christianity, and I bet it's not Hinduism either.
Jeri, your deep faith is commendable. Your path in yoga would be called "Bhakti Yoga" where your devotion (or bhakti in sanskrit) and faith are unshakeable.
Thank you. I thoguht it was "Hatha" yoga, but then, I know nothing of sanskrit!
In another thread you have said that you also believe in the benefits of traditional chinese medicine and acupuncture. Acupuncture serves to unblock Qi energy (prana in yoga) and in so doing boosts the immune system which aids in self-healing. Just curious if you believe in Qi (or prana) and if not how you reconcile your interest in TCM with your self confessed "exclutionary" religious outlook.
Well, when I tried to pin down a yoga teacher about qi in yoga, she kept telling me that there was no exact counterpart in yoga, so I didn't think there was. But as for qi: yes I believe that an energy field is carried on the blood just like it's carried on a charged copper wire. But I don't view that as a religious belief. It's mere physiology.
Jeri | |
| | |
| Hatha Yoga is the yoga of Physical Postures. Bikram is a Hatha Yoga type.
Bakti Yoga is the yoga of devotion. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Jeri,
According to your last statement about Chi....Chi or Qi is not carried by blood in the body. Prana and Qi are carried through the meridian channel and is not a blood vessel. If it were, I would be black and blue and very week from lack of blood from all the Acupuncture that I do. BTW, the meridian channel is NOT recognized in Western Medicine, nor is it understood. Qi and Prana are the same, but in TCM and Ayurvedic medicine there are some differences in how it relates to the human body. However, we know it is an unseen channel and there are many points to reference for each meridian. You can buy the charts in relation to the human body system from a TCM point of view, I've never seen the Ayurvedic one if there is such a thing. | |
| | |
| Dear Jeri and ALL inerested:
It seems that you are still open, which I thought you were not. I request all of you to re-read my all previous posts statement by statement, and word by word. Now, then do another pass, again read my statements, and then read that of Jeri and any other objectioner. And, then we shall go through statement by statement to crack down what I wrote.
For example: Show me where I wrote Bible is false or wrong. Show me where I talked about Hinduism. And, then show me where I said Hinduism is correct compared to Bible, etc. I think we talking apples and oranges. My points were a) There is NO question that Jesus did Yoga, considering what Yoga really means, not what Jeri does. b) For any spiritual practice, it is Impossible to avoid Yoga Practice. c) and, there is NO question that a Christian can practice Yoga in all aspects of Yoga.
If any one has objection to a), b), and c), I am ready.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
| Man, you keep leaving this thread and then coming back to it. Are you going, or are you staying? And while I have better things to do with my time than re-read your posts three times, I can simplify the controversy to a few major points:
Christ never went to India to learn anything from anybody. His sermons and His point of view were based on extensive knowledge of the Law and the Prophets of Israel. His religon, which He kept flawlessly, shunned the ways of the Gentiles and enjoined its followers to remain in the Promised Land, among the race of God's Chosen People, faithfully maintaining stewardship over the land that God had given them. To be acceptable to His own people as a prophet, Christ remained within the borders of the historic nation of Israel. He clearly stated that He had been sent to minister to Israel during His earthly life. He lived as a perfect citizen of Israel, keeping the Law.
Christ never practiced the physical postures of yoga. If we want to talk about His physical exercise, it was walking and carpentry. But He was not remarkable at all for His physical form, not an outstanding speciman of health and vitality. The Bible clearly states that Christ was not a man whose physical bearing made anybody think He was the Son of God.
The word "yoga" does not appear in the Bible.
The death and resurrection of Christ were not enacted to teach us to be good people but rather to conquer sin and death in His people. While Christ did lay out a Biblical morality, founded on the Law (or Old Testament) that corrected the legalism of the Pharisees, the purpose of His sacrifice is Redemption. He has labored on behalf of His people; He has purchased them with His Blood; He has bestowed His righteousness standing with God upon them. Now, you don't have to agree with that belief, but the substitutionary death of Christ is taught from John 1:12 through Revelation, and it is also predicted by the prophets, especially Isaiah. Non-Christians don't believe that because they don't believe the Bible. But anybody who has read the Bible through, believing it or not, comprehends the substitutionary death of Christ taught in its pages. What Christ proclaimed goes way beyond morality, though it encompasses morality.
Jeri
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Jeri,
You are wrong about Jesus Christ - he did go to India and Tibet! This is where your bible study mislead you. This is the reason I never liked to read the bible when I was in school (private christian school), because it was simply not correct and too many things are left out. I can read my Swami's Yoga Guide and get more than I did from the bible. Anyway, I'm not going to argue and try to prove some silly facts to you. But in India and Tibet, everyone knows what happened with Jesus Christ (which was really no big deal to them at that time because Jesus was not the ONLY enlightened being on the earth) and just because they didn't document it, does not mean it didn't happen. The reason it is so dramatic to the westerners and why they hold on really tight to the drama and events surrounding Jesus, because it was so new to them and they were in such a supressed and depressed state in their society at that time. This man was a godsend to them. Then they wanted the whole entire world to recognize this man and back then...that was a big mistake with the Romans. Because of the nature of things back then and karmic reasons, Jesus Christ's teachings were never completed, that is why there is so much of a conflict and why it doesn't work in today's society - IT IS NOT COMPLETE. If we are not careful, Yoga will end up being the same way if the improper persons get a hold of it, because they will use it to control.
Anyway, Yoga is not just about doing Asana's. It is a combination of doing everything Neelbhai mentioned previously. I think you should educate yourself before you start posting about Jesus Christ and Yoga on the same page. Instead of seperating Jesus and Yoga, try to merge them together and see what happens... then while your doing your yoga, do the same thing, it's quite an awesome experience to be ONE with God - whatever level you are on This experience does not belong to the church or anyone, or Jesus for that matter...it only belongs to you and that is the true beauty of it all. However, just because it belongs to you, doesn't mean you own it or that you should be attached and cling to it either. We measure our own success and failures, pick up the pieces and start over again every day, and then we Let it Go again, and again. We let go of the past, the future and we live in the present moment. We even let go of Jesus Christ and what happened to him because that is over, we work on ourselves so that we can leave a brighter future for our children and continue our journey on towards a Godward mind to enlightenment and for an enlightened society. We become responsible humans, meaning we are responsible for our actions, we recognize karma through cause and effect and live from that place. We KNOW what is right and what is wrong, because all those answers are hidden deep inside of us. Our Yoga practice develops this for us in a natural way that is almost supernatural. So, yes Christians can practice Yoga...but, it is necessary to open your mind to the teachings as well for a COMPLETE YOGA experience. | |
| | |
| >>>Anyway, I'm not going to argue and try to prove some silly facts to you.
Of course you're not, because there are no facts to support your assertion. Not having read the text of the Bible, you are free to make sweeping assertions, but anybody who has read the Bible knows the witnesses of the life of Christ regarded Him as a Prophet of Israel, and His teachings and sermons opened up the Law.
You slander facts as "silly" because you don't respect factual information. And that's not open minded; that's actually narrow minded.
And certainly, you can cling to a pipe dream of Jesus the world traveler (though He is never acknowledged as such by any witness to His ministry, ever). And you can dismiss facts as trivial. But in the end, we have a presentation of facts, and we also have your view.
Every question has thousands of possible answers, until you find the facts. And then all the other possible answers are excluded.
Jeri.
| |
| | |
| Dear Jeri:
Since you have NO time to re-read my previous posts in the light of your careless statements, but you have lot of time to make more careless statements, it will be wasting time to discuss with you. You commented on my Intelligence and I have no problems, because I wish to improve it. However, you have blinded yourself while trying to give light to others.
Your last posting said Jesus got his knowledge from xxxxxx (see your statements). The one who gets his knowledge from anywhere else can not be GOD, but has to be a Student. Now, student for what, to get that knowledge. The one who tries for knowledge is called Yogi in Yoga. And, when the knowledge is gotten it is called Yoga-siddha, and then he gives that knowledge to others. Now, others call him Yogi, Prophet, God, Son of God, Paramhansa, etc. For examples, Bhagavan Rajaneesh (Osho), Ramana Marshi, Maharshi Mahesha Yogi, Paramahansa Yogananda, Ramakrishna Paramhansa.
Now, I can give you thousands of names long before Christ was born, which come in the category of his, or even much higher than that of his, using your logic of Sin-Absorption, Born-For_others, etc.
I am NOT objecting to what he was about in that respect. Objection is for what he was NOT as wrongly understood by You and Fanatics.
Now, let me give you one thing you or others probably (note this word 'probably') do not know. There is NO question that Spirituality existed in India thousands and thousands of years ago and it has seen thousands of exhaulted liberated souls such as Jesus. Therefore, it reached a conclusion that 'God is one paths are many. Truth is one, forms are many. ekam sat satvipra bahuda vadanti... upnishad'. And, therefore, it is nothing great for me that a great soul is born and will be born again. However, in the part where Jesus treaded, there did not exist such a soul, so they could not comprehend the existence of such exaulted spirit. And, they called him God. And, that is no problem. The problem was created because they went on removing all other GODs, which is IMPOSSIBLE. I AM NOT STATING THAT YOU ARE DOING THIS. I am just telling you this point.
Love and Peace
Neel Kulkarni | |
| | |
| Well, in retrospect to Jesus IMO, people didn't understand him then, even his closest friends. Today, we still dont (and IMO neither do any stories written about him, it is all just essence)
I do have one point to make though. Please, take this LIGHTLY not LITERALLY.
Jane hears about this thing called apple. She is interested in the apple and hears great stories about it. So, wanting to inform herself more, she goes to a book store and gets a book on apples. The book says apples are round, and they are red. In Janes head she sees a circle that is coloured red. Wow, this is magnificent. She goes to tell EVERYONE. Telling them about Apple, the red circle.
Janes friends have also learned about apple. They try to tell her that there is more to the apple. Jane thinking, really? I better go check the store again. She buys many more books, with different points of views.
Jane learns that apples can be green, that they grow on trees, that she can eat them, and so much more. Now Jane knows even more.
So, in a nutshell, for me, this is what I like to do. Read from all sides. Everyone has good points, and perhaps they are ALL true. All sides are important to see a thing from all angels. And let me tell you, it is beautiful to see.
Another point. In my art class in school (years agao) our teacher told us to sit around the room in a circle. She then placed a block in the middle. We all drew it. After, we all placed our pictures up, and looked at them, they were all different, but it was the same thing.
Thankyou everyone, for your insights. I have enjoyed reading it all. | |
| | |
| FamousLadyJane - 2005-04-06 6:39 PM
Jane thinking, really? I better go check the store again. She buys many more books, with different points of views.
Wouldn't it better Jane going directly to the greengrocers and actually buying apple instead of books about apple?
BTW, my apple is transparent grey (calls itself "graphite"), has a monitor, DVD player and works on 230V.
That's what I would recomment every christian to do who is in doubt if he/she can do the yoga: Go to class, try it out and see if the devil gets your soul or not.
No book, no discussion can be a valid substitute for the personal experience, ever!!!
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Jane - >>All sides are important to see a thing from all angels.<< I must agree. Seeing things from all angels point of view is important | |
| | |
| afroyogi - 2005-04-05 2:10 PM
Wouldn't it better Jane going directly to the greengrocers and actually buying apple instead of books about apple?
Exactly, you got it. Just when you think it is THAT much closer, you can always get even closer. The point is to always keep discovering and re-discovering.
afroyogi - 2005-04-05 2:10 PM
That's what I would recomment every christian to do who is in doubt if he/she can do the yoga: Go to class, try it out and see if the devil gets your soul or not.
No book, no discussion can be a valid substitute for the personal experience, ever!!!
I think for some, though, (at least what I have noticed) is that it is not possible to 'try' things for fear that it will happen (the devil will get your soul, and you will no longer be immune, etc). This fear can be very big and real. So, for some it stops them from trying new things because of what can happen. | |
| | |
| tourist - 2005-04-05 5:31 PM
Jane - >>All sides are important to see a thing from all angels.<< I must agree. Seeing things from all angels point of view is important
That too, haha | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | The Angel Angle. Snark, snark, snark....
"Ye holy angels bright! who sit at god's right hand! or through the realms of light fly
at your lord's co-mmand!" etc. etc.
The poetry in hymns is sooooo pathetic. ....through the realms of light fly... 
Nice uptempo tune, anyway. | |
| | |
| Please don’t misunderstand my post.. I do not believe in Lord Jesus or Lord Krishna.. I’m a Theravadi Buddhist who doesn’t believe in any formed or unformed gods (Thripitaka doest accept the concept of a god neither it rejects. ). What we believe is the human being and the power of our own mind and what we do and the intentions of doing things. But living in a multi regional country /world I respect all the religions and the believers.
My point is that some of the catholic groups living here believe that Lord Jesus has been in India., (Specially some of the Tamil Catholics accept this due to their heritage.. I don’t know..). They say that missing years of the bible are the years that Lord Jesus has been in India by exploring several eastern philosophies to a greater depth.
It says, “ With his emphasis on Love and his disregard to social stratification Jesus preached a Droctrin similar to that of the Bhakthi movements of India. Infact content and moods of his messages are close to those of Vaishnava Bhakti. That many conclude there may have been direct contact between Jesus and India”
Some Archeologists believe that an Ancient Pali manuscript which talks about saint “Issa “ is the Jesus. Further they assume that early European and Russian travelers have unearthed similar documents attesting to Jesus journey to east.
Rev. CR. Potter and Edga Cayse (Both writing from Christian prospective) Andreas Faber (Wrinting from Muslim point of view) assert that Jesus went to India in missing years of the bible.
Further Vaishnawa scripture Bhavishya purana foretells Jesus journey to India. It describes how people in India wonder about the unusual site of a white foreign man and report to Maharaj. Saint Issa’s answers to Maharaj’s questions by claiming that he is Issa the Son of the God, expected Messiah of his people and that he was born of a virgin. Further he has mention about Amalekites. (an ancient tribe directly related to the bible tradition) Many vishnawas accept Lord Jesus as son of god and that how he is accepted puranas., there, Krishna is refered as God, Jesus’ father. Lord Krishna declares that he is the father of universe. (Bg.9.17). Steven J. Rosen who is the author of the book Glory of India assumes that when Lord Jesus prays “Our father who art in heaven, it might or might not be to Lord Krishna that he is praying.
But some says that Jesus to India happened after his crucifixion
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/1340/jesus_in_india.htm
“his is an English version of an Urdu treatise written by the Holy Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908. ) . The theme is the escape of Jesus from death on the cross, and his journey to India in search of the lost tribes of Israel. Christian as well as Muslim scriptures, and old medical and historical books including ancient Buddhist records, provide evidence about this journey. Jesus is shown to have reached Afghanistan, and to have met the Jews who had settled there after deliverance from the bondage of Nebuchadnezzar. From Afghanistan Jesus went on to Kashmir, where other Israelite tribes had settled. There he made his home, and there in time he died; his tomb has been found in Srinagar.”
Any way all these facts I have gathered from texts and this is not to offence anybody., This is for readers knowledge only. No matter which theory we believe.. “What we believe is true “. This is only for knowledge. It doesn’t matter if Lord Jesus has been in India or not. Or Lord Buddha has been in Rome or not, What matters is whether we are true Christians, true Buddhists, true Muslims or true Hindus who can be open minded and who can respect each others beliefs.
Edited by Thushara 2005-04-06 2:33 AM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
This is interesting Thusara. There was apparently a significant amount of
contact between the Middle East and India during that time period, according
to various things that I've read. The Gnostic Gospels, which were written within
100 to 200 years of Christ's life are also interpreted as have a substantial
Vedic influence.
When I get some free (if that happy day ever comes), I am going to find
more information on this topic.
| |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2005-04-04 12:09 PM
Dear me....we cannot possibly arrive at any resolution of the question of
whether particular scriptures have got divine origins (e.g., god working
through men). You either believe it or you don't.
True. And I think that it is also reasonable to say that we can examine the source documents (if any) of a religion, to see if a particular statement about that religion is consistent with that religion.
Likewise, if someone says "Jesus did such and such," then it is reasonable to examine the Bible to see if that statement is true. After all, Jesus is uniquely associated with the Christian religion. The sacred writings of other religions (except Islam) do not speak of Jesus, and the NT of the Bible does speak of Him at length. Even speaking from a merely historical point of view, the accounts of Jesus in the bible are one of the best attested narritives in all of ancient writing. There are more eye-witnesses to Jesus, more parallel accounts of His life, and more ancient copies of these original manuscripts, than there are for any other ancient figure.
This claim cannot be made by stories of Jesus that have become popular in any other religious tradition.
... on the question of
contradictions in scripture, it's a topic that scholars, proponents, and opponents
of particular beliefs have debated endlessly. I don't suppose that we
can do much more than annoy each other with that set of issues.
And we seem to be carrying on that tradition :-). But if I said that JimBob's yoga teaching was seriously flawed, & nobody should study with him, then it would be reasonable to expect me to prove that, or at least ofer some examples, or to do something other than just hang it out there on the 'net. No?
So let's either leave it that somebody made a hasty assertion, got called on it, and did not back it up... or let's see the contradiction(s).
Cheers! | |
| | |
| Yeah, it makes total sense that there is Eastern mystery influence in the Gnostic writings, if you are familiar with history of the Christian religion. The core of the Gnostic heresy is that there is some secret knowledge or knowing that a person can attain thru sufficient study/practice/meditation/whatever, that will produce salvation.
This would sound very familiar to Buddists.
This is also the reason that gnosticism was found to be heretical. BTW, in Xtniaty, a heresy is a wrong teaching; one that contradicts a fundamental belief of Xtniaty. The core of gnosticism, is that man achieves salvation by some means. In contrast, Xtniaty believes simply that Jesus saves. Not by imparting secret knowledge, not by somehow empowerinng a spiritual practice or by leading someone to enlightenment, but by a mere act of His will.
)>
So, while it is true & perceptive to note that the gnostic writings are very Eastern in flavor, it is also true that these writings are not a part of the Christian religion.
Cheers..... | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Elson, I don't really follow your point your point in the your first message of 4-12.
I'm not the one who said Jesus was in India, and so far as I can see you are agreeing
the with basic statements that I made.
As for heresies (mentioned in your second message), they are declared by one
set of interpreters of a faith against another set of interpreters. Such issues cannot
be resolved unless you start by declaring that one interpretation is correct and the
other is not. Gnosticism is a different interpretation of christianity than the one you
have adopted. Calling it a heresey is simply a fancy way to say that it's not constitent
with what you believe.
| |
| | |
| Bay Guy :-)
Actually, there is a standard set of beliefs that defines Christianity. You are not familiar with the history of the Church, so that point is not obvious to you. Which is reasonable, since it isn't your religion. Someone can say that Christianity is not well defined, but that is simply untrue.
Christians do not believe that truth is relative, so we recognise that whatever is True for me is also True for you and everybody else. There is no such thing as relative truth, just a reasonable recognition that everybody is different.
But the Christian God is not relative, He is absolute. Thus His character, His commands, and the history of His work in the world, is also absolute truth. People can, as you say, interpret these things differently, but there is only one set of facts, and all else is error.
So, Orthodox (or standard) Christianity is composed of those denominations which agree with the core tenets of Christianity, and this group is comprises some 90% of the billions of Christians in the world.
Gnosticism is a heresy, was recognised as such somewhere around the second century of the church, and it has been continually recognised as such throughout the generations.
The roots go deep, very deep, and it is not difficult to spot branches that are of other trees. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Heretics are simply people whose beliefs differ from whatever group is
sticking the label on them. Gnostics might very well regard *your* interpretation
of christianity as heresy. It's probably fun to throw the label around,
but all it means is "not my point of view".
I certainly agree with your comment about some christians declaring
that their personal beliefs represent an absolute truth that should
be applied to everyone else. There are muslims who also think that
way. Such attitudes are at times used to justify the persecution of those
who do not share christian or muslim beliefs. I find such thinking
to be very damaging to civil society.
| |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2005-04-15 10:18 AM
I certainly agree with your comment about some christians declaring
that their personal beliefs represent an absolute truth that should
be applied to everyone else. There are muslims who also think that
way. Such attitudes are at times used to justify the persecution of those
who do not share christian or muslim beliefs. I find such thinking
to be very damaging to civil society.
I'd have to agree with you. Not only to civilization, but families can be destroyed because of it, and love (ers) forbidden. Is this what the prophets and messiahs wanted? | |
| | |
| Well, you are certainly welcome to think that religious truth is relative, but that is just because you do not think that it matters. Or perhaps you do not take religion seriously. Whatever.
But theology is a science, not an art. 1 + 1 = 2. That is a mathematical/scientific statement, and it remains true whether I "believe in it" or not. Statements about all other matters of reality are equally subject to verification. The laws of motion and gravity are true, regardless of the opinion of anyone.
Likewise, there are false statements. An object in motion cannot be simultaneously moving at two different velocities respect to another object.
In mathematics, we call the statement 1=2 false, because it _is_ false. It is absolutely false. Ditto for the other sciences. in the theology, we call statements heresy if they are contrary to what the bible says about our God.
Now, is it dangerous for a mathematician to state with absolute certainty that 1=2 is false? Maybe I should fear mathematicians?
But if we do not need to fear mathematicians, then why fear religious people who are as certain of their theology as some are of their mathematics?
*
You definition of heresy is not illuminated by an understanding of history of the origins and use of the term. Technically, it means a Christian who dissents with the official theology of the Christian Church in a significant way. It is not possible for a nonChirstian to be a Christian heretic.
Gnosticism is a heresy because it is contrary to the Christian religion. This is not only *my* interpretation, but the interpretation of the church. It would be breathtakingly arrogant of someone to think that they could analyse, correctly interpret & understand, and render a cogent opinion on a doctrine of the Church without having done some rather seriously study.
It is very seductive to think that your or my opinion about religion is as good as anyone else's, and that whatever we believe is fine, but it is not more justified than saying that everyone's opinion of what 1+1 equals is equally valid for them.
Whether two objects can occupy the same space at the same time is not a matter of opinion, and the opinion of the driver on these things will not matter, if he runs his car into a concrete wall. Only the truth will matter. Likewise, whether or not there is a God, what his attributes or characteristics might be, his plans for the world, and his demands of people - all of these questions have answers, real answers. There either is a God, or there is not. He either cares what we do, or he doesn't. If God is part of reality, then there are real facts about him.
Since the facts about God (whatever they are) are matters of reality, then statements about God are either true or false. We might not be able to discover the facts, or understand the facts, but the facts exist.
Is there a more important work than to try to understand God?
*
btw, the Church teaches religious intollerance and civil tolerance. In modern English, religious intollerance means that we do not have to allow the teaching of heresy in our churches. We are to guard the true understanding of God in the Christian church. This is an internal matter, and has nothing to do with people who do not claim to be Christians.
Civil tolerance means that we do not have the right to force our beliefs, opinions, or religion on other people. We are not allowed to use _any_ coersion, outside of the legal process that is available to every citizen, to achieve religious goals. So you don't have to worry about Christians being dangerous because they believe in absolute truth, because part of that truth is that they are not to force anyone else to live by that truth.
But I'm not so sure about those mathematicians :-) | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | It's interesting that you should compare mathematical rigor and
physical law to religious faith. If you had a background in ontology
or mathematical logic, you would know that the existence of god
cannot be "proven" in the same sense that physical or mathematical
results can be. Put simply, it is impossible to design an objective
experiment or a logical proof to demonstrate the existence of god.
Religion is not a science. Religion is a faith.
*
Heresey is what one sect of a religion says about another sect of
a religion with which it disagrees. Unless you start by assuming
that one of the two sects has the correct interpretation, there's
no way to prove that one or the other is right.
You've refered to the bible and the "official" theology of the christian church,
but this ignores the fact that the books of the bible were selected
by men from among many scriptures available (in 200 to 400 AD),
including other gospels: a judgment was made about which books
to include or exclude. It also ignores the subsequent texts, such as those
giving rise to the Mormon [Christian] Church. It further defines some
subset of christianity as "official" --- do you include the Catholic church in
this? Or the Mormons? Or the Quakers? Or the Unitarians?
*
Ontology is actually kind of fun. Here's St. Anselm's "proof" of god's existence:
1. God is a being which none greater can be conceived.
2. Even an atheist claims God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. However, God would be a better being if he existed in reality, not just as an idea.
4. Therefore, God must exist in reality, not just as an idea.
Essentially, it says "god is perfect, and perfection implies existence: therefore
god exists". The defect in this was pointed out by Immanuel Kant: you can't
add existence as a property of things in order to prove that they exist --- you
must actually check whether it is true. Defining my house as a place containing
$1 million, and then carefully refining that definition, would not ensure that my
house actually has $1 million in it.
ref: http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/onto.html
*
We can each hold our religious faith fervently and with a certainty of its correctness,
and we should respect each other's beliefs. The hard part is to accept that these
are our own beliefs and that we cannot "prove" them objectively. I am glad to
read your comments about not coercing others, except where you cite the legal
process. IMHO, religion has no business in law. Law enforces ethics and morality,
but it should never be used to impose or enforce religion. Sadly, we are now seeing
an effort by the Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, to use the federal courts to enforce
conservative christian views. This seems to me a clear effort to undercut the democratic
principles of our country.
| |
| | |
| I was struggling with ontology, in terms of origins and existence, 30 years ago. Here's our (impossible) objective experiment:
1) We die
2) Either we face the Christian afterlife, or not. Either we are reincarnated, or not.
Just because the God hypothesis can not be proven today, does not mean that it is unprovable. In fact, the hypothesis itself makes it impossible that it is unprovable.
*
Heresy. Yes, there is an easy way to understand which denominations of Christianity have the correct interpretation - you follow the history of the church & understand the currents of theological thought that run thru that history. You will soon see the continuity of thought from earliest Christian times until now.
Are Catholics what we cann orthodox Christians? Yes. Quakers & Puritans? Yes. Mormons? No. The difference is that the Mormons have a different Jesus - someone who is different in nature and character, and so is not the true Jesus. Catholicism celebrates the real Jesus. So even if they have many theological errors according to Protestants, they are still true church.
Do Catholics believe in many heretical doctrines? Yes. But they are still orthodox, because they believe in the same Jesus.
*
The bible was not written by men in the same way as books of theology or novels are written. the various books of the bible were written by God, with men as partners, but God worked with those men in such a way that the final words were exactly what God had planned to write from the foundation of the world. He can do that, because He is God :-).
The particular letters and scrolls that were eventually recognised by the church as Scripture, were those that were written either by an apostle or one who knew & traveled with Jesus. The selected works also were limited to those that were universally recognised by the churches as Scripture, and finally, those works that weree selected were all in agreement with each other.
*
Ok, ontological arguments for the existenceof God:
1) Stuff. Everything comes from something, be it matter or energy. A corollery to the law of the conservation of matter/energy, is that if there was ever nothing, then there would be nothing from which could come. Having become void, the universe would be over. No things come from no thing. So if there ever was a time when nothing existed, then nothing would ever come to be.
2) Cause & effect. There had to be a first Cause. That would be God.
And such as that. Anselm is not very compelling to me, either...
*
>> IMHO, religion has no business in law. Law enforces ethics and morality,
but it should never be used to impose or enforce religion. Sadly, we are now seeing
an effort by the Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, to use the federal courts to enforce
conservative christian views. This seems to me a clear effort to undercut the democratic
principles of our country.
Two things: First, yes, I did not phrase that thought correctly. More precisely, my theology says that there are two general limits on my evangelization work. First, I cannot break the law (except for preaching without a license, which is my right from God, and I must ignore any laws against that if necessary) to explain Jesus to people. That is what I mean by persuing legal means (more later). The second limit is that it is impossible to argue someone into salvation by my God. I cannot argue, intimidate, force, bribe, fool, trick, pay, educate, or manipulate anyone into being saved. I can't even pray someone into being saved. Salvation belongs to my God, and He decides who will be saved. Then He opens their eyes to His beauty and excellencies, and they believe. My only work in this process is to teach and explain and generally make the bible scriptures available to people, because that is the tool that He uses to save people.
Now, my religion has a lot to do with law, and rightly so. Ethics and morality come from religious conviction, even if the God of that religion happens to be Man, as is the case with humanism. The question that has to be asked of every tenet of a moral system is "why." Why not kill or rape or steal ? This is a religious question. Whether the answer is "because God said so," or "because you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you" (humanism), or "because the ubermench is above such things," or "it is bad for your karma," questions of morality come down to questions of religion.
So religion is a perfect basic opon which an intellectually honest person can form an opinion on proposed legislation.
Democratic values (actually more of a constitutional representative republic sort of thing) are not threatened by conservative Xtns seeking to pass laws that they believe in, any more that the system is threatened by laws being pushed by any other special interest group or opinion block. Does legislation that favors Hispanics, and is introduced and backed by Hispanics, a threat to democracy? No. It is the essence of democracy in action!
Now, if the legislature or judiciary starts making laws that affect the free exercise of someone's religion (as long as it doesn't harm anyone), _then_ we have a threat to freedom, not to mention democracy. And that is the point of "civil tolerance" that I was talking about - the Church is forbidden to pass laws that discriminate against people because they do not practise my religion my way - or any religion in any way, or none of the above.
Cheers................ | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Thanks, Elson, for the long reply. I understand your POV much better.
There's one passage in what you wrote that I would question.
>>> Now, my religion has a lot to do with law, and rightly so. Ethics and morality come from religious conviction, even if the God of that religion happens to be Man, as is the case with humanism. The question that has to be asked of every tenet of a moral system is "why." Why not kill or rape or steal ? This is a religious question. Whether the answer is "because God said so," or "because you wouldn't like it if someone did that to you" (humanism), or "because the ubermench is above such things," or "it is bad for your karma," questions of morality come down to questions of religion.
<<<
I'm not so sure that morality "comes from religious conviction". One could equally well say
that one of the primary social functions of religion is to support a moral order. Either way,
morality is entwined with religion, but is not the same as religion. Religion deals first with divinity/deity, and then extends itself to moral principles.
The principal function of most moral principles (such as six of the ten commandents) is to
provide a stable and civilized society. Absent any religion at all, we'd almost certainly have
moral principles against murder and theft because they undermine our ability to live
peacefully with one another. Those moral principles become the basis for rules (laws) that
govern our conduct.
This distinction as to whether deity is involved in a belief system is what sometimes
leads people to refer to Buddhism, Humanism, or Vedanta as philosophy rather than religion. | |
| | |
| >> I'm not so sure that morality "comes from religious conviction". One could equally well say that one of the primary social functions of religion is to support a moral order. Either way, morality is entwined with religion, but is not the same as religion. Religion deals first with divinity/deity, and then extends itself to moral principles.
Yes. Good point. I agree. I have to argue against my own point. Many of the world's moral & legal codes were developed without a religious basis. The Code of Hanurabi(?) comes to mind. | |
| | |
| So many posts on this subject and so many different points-of-view -- it is making my head spin !!!
In my short time of practicing Bikram and Vinyasa -- I have come to really love the physical benefits -- but always end up feeling guilty and asking myself if this conflicts with Christianity. I then go to the internet and do searches on the subject. Sometimes I am reassured that it's OK -- other times it's the opposite. Anyway, here is the result of my last search. Any thoughts . . . ???
"Every Yoga teacher is, in effect, a Hindu or Buddhist missionary, even though he or she may wear a cross, insist that Jesus was a great Yogi, and protest that Yoga is not a religion, but science. This is the most blatant of lies."
"The practice of Yoga is pagan at best, and occultic at worse. Its teachings emanate from the Eastern religions, all of which teach that self is God . . ."
"Another little known fact is that virtually every major guru in India has issued warnings similar to these; i.e., deep-breathing techniques such as the ones taught in Yoga are a time-honored method for entering altered states of consciousness and for developing so-called psychic power. [Note: Yoga is one of the basic means of reaching this altered state of consciousness. And the altered state is the doorway to the occult.]"
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/yoga.htm
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Well, that site kind of speaks for itself, with its rabid hysteria and
toxic presentation of Hinduism.
The site refers to Siva as "The Destroyer", but that's really more of
a reference to Rudra, as least in the way it's presented. Siva
translates as "The friendly one". And yes, he is the Mahayogi,
the great yogi, the author of yoga.
Yoga encompasses many useful physical practices, such as asana
and pranayama, as well as ethical practices, such as yama and niyama.
These in themselves have nothing to do with religion, and I see no
reason that a[n intelligent] Christian should worry that they will
interfere with his or her practice of Christianity. One of the niyamas
is devotion or surrender to god -- it doesn't say which god or how.
Your god, your way.
If you happen to go on to Advaita Vendanta -- non-dualism -- then
you will have problems with Christian theology, which doesn't really
work that way. But I think that a practicing Christian should not have
problems working with Hatha yoga as is it commonly practiced and
taught in the US. And if you hear something that runs against your
beliefs, you can disregard it or just find another teacher.
| |
| | |
| can christians practice yoga? yes, if they have a sticky mat. : ) | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| | |
| | |
| I think that most Hindus and Buddhists would be quite dismayed to learn that I was considered a missionary for their deeply held beliefs which I do not understand at all!
So if I serve my family some pizza, does that make me an Italian missionary?
If I perform in a Shakespearian play, am I furthering the British agenda?
If I teach a Pilates class, am I acting on behalf of German POW's?
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| So true, Jean - I sing "Twinkle, Little Star" and "Row, row your Boat" daily but it does not make me either a rower or and astronaut. Not to take the question lightly but sometimes it is the clearer way to see | |
| | |
| Hey TGirl :-)
Yep, from the point of view of a Protestant Systematic Theology, the bible has several interesting things to say about Asana practice:
1) Physical training is of some value to the Christian life. Since asana trains the body in strength, flexibility, concentration, relaxation, increased O2 (if you are doing breathing exercises), &etc, then it is of at least equal value to the Christian life as running or aerobics or dance.
2) God looks at the heart, not the hands. That isn't to say that He doesn't care if your hands are holding up a liquor store :-). but His main concern is with your heart/ intentions. That principle is paired with the next one...
3) Worship is not a vague thing, but a specific interaction between God and man. If a person in a Christian church sings hymns to God and raises his hands and takes notes on the sermon and gives money for the work of the church, and outwardly seems to be doing everything to worship God - but if he is doing it for some reason other than just the love of God - then it is not worship.
4) Combining points 2 & 3, the yoga class that I most value is an Anusara class, which is all eat up with Tantra and God as a she, and we have a devotional at the beginning of class, and much of the asana is spoken of as an offering. In short, I am in the middle of a new age/buddhist worship service or sorts.
Since I am not offering worship to their dieties, I do not sin in that. Also, the motions that they offer to their gods are not worship in the Christian sense. Their heart attitude is their worship (in Xtn doctrine). So since I do share their heart attitude, I do not sin.
There are a couple of other important points that bear thought. First, You and I need to be careful that we do not lead our weaker brothers into sin. In other words, if I practice yoga freely because my conscience is clear, but my brother thinks that there is something sinful about it, then I cannot allow my example to lead him to do something that he considers sinful. So if my practice of yoga is a danger to the faith of another Christian, then I need to do something aout that (like teach him a better understanding of theology, so that he then understands correctly that the matter is not inherently sinful.
The other point, that is most important to you, is to look deeply within yourself every class to make sure that your faith is not being changed by the Buddhist teaching.
Dale | |
| | |
| good one, anya :-) | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | elson - 2005-09-01 2:36 PM
There are a couple of other important points that bear thought. First, You and I need to be careful that we do not lead our weaker brothers into sin. In other words, if I practice yoga freely because my conscience is clear, but my brother thinks that there is something sinful about it, then I cannot allow my example to lead him to do something that he considers sinful. So if my practice of yoga is a danger to the faith of another Christian, then I need to do something aout that (like teach him a better understanding of theology, so that he then understands correctly that the matter is not inherently sinful.
The other point, that is most important to you, is to look deeply within yourself every class to make sure that your faith is not being changed by the Buddhist teaching.
Dale
And in the same sense, I can sing Gospel hymns (which I think is really fun) without
worshipping the Christian God. Krshna Das has a couple of Gospel tunes that he uses
in Kirtan, but the intent is all Bhakti yoga. It's all about where your mind and heart are,
I suppose.
Hare Krshna Hare Krshna Krshna Krshna Hare Hare Hare Ram Hare Ram Ram Ram Hare Hare | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Good points Dale. I try to stay out of these conversations but I have to say here for clarity: Yoga is not Buddhist teachings. Many yoga schools honour and respect Buddhist teaching and incorporate Buddhist language and sensibility just as they incorporate Hindu language and sensibility. Some schools of yoga actively teach Hindu philosophy, they may even teach some Buddhist philosophy. But people need to understand the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. We tend to smush them together here in the west and that is not respectful or honouring the traditions properly, IMHO.
I think if many "Christians" could think freely enough to have your enlightened point of view on worship (and understood their own religion better) they would feel less threatened by yoga. And the world would be a better place! | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Gotta agree --- Yoga is mainly a Hindu idea. Buddhism, however, is derived from Hinduism
and many of the basic premises and goals are similar. I won't claim to understand the
nuances fully (I get myself in trouble with my teachers when my earlier interests in Buddhism
bleed into my understanding of yoga); however, if we let go of orthodoxy, we can still find
much intellectual consistency amongst the concepts of the two schools of thought. A weak
observation perhaps, as I also find much intellectual consistency between basic premises
(ethical premises, in particular) of Hinduism and Christianity, despite the utter contradiction of
dualist and non-dualist religions.
What about the following approach: remove everything from religions that addresses life
beyond death (heaven, hell, reincarnation, etc.). Once that is done, how different are
they? Do they help us to be happier or to get along with others better? If religion is only
about life after death, can we be confident that it is meaningful? Can we accept our own
end without explanation?
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| OOOoh! Good question, Bay Guy. We'll have to ponder that one for a bit. | |
| | |
| I don't know if anyone here has read the Dalai Lama's book, "Ethics for the New Millenium"- he basically says forget religion and just everyone be nice to each other. That in itself would be a revolution.
OK- so he doesn't say nice, he says compassionate which is more complex. But you get the idea. | |
| | |
| Dear Brother BayGuy, tourist and Isha:
1. What BG wrote about forgetting life beyond death or forgetting incarnation, etc. in order to end trouble with religions is all fine and good as far as Social Aspect of Religion is concerned. However, the main reason all the religious things came into existence is due to Personal problems. Regardless of how much people including great leaders in the world consider themselves to be good of many or love thy neighbours, etc, etc., each person including the saints ultimately is trying to find only individual Freedom, called as Kaivalyam in Patanjali, Moksha in Hiduism, Nirvana in Buddhism, and Salvation in some other religions. When, a person understands that it is the same God, Spirit, Universal Soul, Paramatman, etc exits in all beings, then one can attend or one attends to Universal Brotherhood properly, and also this becomes a means of their Salvation. Universal Brotherhood without individual peace, individual happiness, individual freedom in mind does not last for long. Therefore, vedas state,
aham brahmasmi, sarvam khalvidam brahma. first one understands individual spirit, and then one understands univeral spirit.
2. Now, there is no question that Buddhism is nothing but previous Vedic Teachings expressed in a particular context. Not only this, the method of meditation and all concepts related to that were gotten by Gautam Buddha from Vedic rishis of his times. Of course, he actually performed the meditation and preached to people in the context of his times, and due to his missionary activity, it formed new Philsophy/Religion/Method/whatever called Buddhism. Also, only after Buddha and Christ, did people called Vedic Philsophy as Hinduism and then in the context of social development people used the term Hinduism. There is NO Vedic text which uses the word Hindu or Hiduism.
3. Forgetting Religion and Being compassionate is as difficult as giving up one's bank account totally to the victims of disaster, it is exactly same. If my own sister, I mean a blood sister is in Katrina, I behave differently from my another friend in Katrina. I mean my standard of compassion is different. Only realized saints or close to that status feel the same for all beings. And, when they feel so, they do not have any wealth to share, they have already shared what they have. Thus, in a rich world where wealth is horded, no compassion is possible. However, for ending social fighting related to religion, I agree that one can forget religion and obtain some peace. But, after this peace, one shall go into search of Individual Freedom, and then knowledge of Universal spirit.
4. The difference between Yoga and Buddhism is Shoonyavaad, where concept of Universal spirit does not exist in Buddhism. This concept was debated by Adi Shankara and Buddhism influence in India was replaced by Advaita Vedanta, which was the original Philsophy.
5. I do not believe that one has to forget religion to be compassionate. But, one should forget religion because Religion is based upon a particular personality. There is only one Religion, that is the Truth, also called as God, also called as Allah, also called as Paramatman, also called as Ishwara.
Peace
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Oh my goodness.
So, would you please comment further or expand upon your comments...."The difference between Yoga and Buddhism is Shoonyavaad, where concept of Universal spirit does not exist in Buddhism. This concept was debated by Adi Shankara and Buddhism influence in India was replaced by Advaita Vedanta, which was the original Philsophy".
Neel, this is where I sometimes have a conflict due to the monastery teachings I have had previously and my Vedanta teachings now. What is the meaning of Shoonyavaad - your translation? I understand Shoonya - means empty, nothing. How can you take the Buddhist meaning of Emptiness and apply it with Yoga teachings to mean the same??? Is that possible?
Cyndiben
| |
| | |
| Cyndiben:
Let me take a couple of days, and I shall answer properly. If you are in a hurry, you have to research Adi Shankara's commentary on Brahmasutra, the LAST work of Veda Vyasa. Also, just for information of all, the Vyasa who wrote commentary on Patanjali is NOT Veda Vyasa who wrote Bhagavadgita, codified Vedas, and also wrote Brahmasutra and Puranas.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-09-20 4:48 PM
Dear Brother BayGuy, tourist and Isha:
1. What BG wrote about forgetting life beyond death or forgetting incarnation, etc. in order to end trouble with religions is all fine and good as far as Social Aspect of Religion is concerned. However, the main reason all the religious things came into existence is due to Personal problems. Regardless of how much people including great leaders in the world consider themselves to be good of many or love thy neighbours, etc, etc., each person including the saints ultimately is trying to find only individual Freedom, called as Kaivalyam in Patanjali, Moksha in Hiduism, Nirvana in Buddhism, and Salvation in some other religions. When, a person understands that it is the same God, Spirit, Universal Soul, Paramatman, etc exits in all beings, then one can attend or one attends to Universal Brotherhood properly, and also this becomes a means of their Salvation. Universal Brotherhood without individual peace, individual happiness, individual freedom in mind does not last for long. Therefore, vedas state,
aham brahmasmi, sarvam khalvidam brahma. first one understands individual spirit, and then one understands univeral spirit.
There is NO Vedic text which uses the word Hindu or Hiduism.
Peace
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org
Dear Brother Neel,
I'm glad that you are back from your travels.
On your first point: Sarvum Khalvidam Brahma. If we understood this, there would
be no need for religion, would there?
On "Hindu" --it's basically a word made up by 19th Century British people, I think.
I'm not even sure what it means, except as a symbol of Indian philosophy and deities.
BG
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | kulkarnn - 2005-09-20 10:32 PM
Cyndiben:
Let me take a couple of days, and I shall answer properly. If you are in a hurry, you have to research Adi Shankara's commentary on Brahmasutra, the LAST work of Veda Vyasa. Also, just for information of all, the Vyasa who wrote commentary on Patanjali is NOT Veda Vyasa who wrote Bhagavadgita, codified Vedas, and also wrote Brahmasutra and Puranas.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org
No hurry Neelbhai, I am looking forward to your response. Danyabaad
Cyndiben | |
| | |
| Dear Brother Bay Guy:
1. Yes, I agree there is NO need to have the word Religion. But, the word already exists. Religion means returning to your own true nature or a path to return to your own nature. And, that nature is the Truth, Brahman. However, people due to Ignorance (not in a bad sense, but just grammatical meaning or fact), think that religion has to do with one person, one place, or such.
2. Hindu means as follows: Hindu is wrong pronuciation of Sindhu. Sindhu is a river on which a very spiritual culture developed which was the Vedic culture. That is why it is called Hindu. Then, when missionary religions such as Buddhism and Christianity came, they named Vedic culture as Hinduism. I think even Gautam Buddha and Jesus Christ were preaching only in the context of the soceity at that time and they had no problem with Hinduism, but their followers who wanted to form an Institution on this name later created a fanatic group. Same thing happened with Muhammad followers. Not only this, but even brahmins of India tried to create a financially or powerful group which was not same as the original meaning of Brahminism. All these led to fighting which is the cause of unrest seen today.
Cyndiben: With apologies, I have to be brief. For your comparitive studies related to Refutation of Buddhist Philosophy: You can study the following:
a) Patanjali Yoga Sutras - Chapter 4 - sutras 15 to 21.
b) Brahmasutra = Chapter 2 (this will be more work).
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | kulkarnn - 2005-09-21 8:14 AM
Dear Brother Bay Guy:
1. Yes, I agree there is NO need to have the word Religion. But, the word already exists. Religion means returning to your own true nature or a path to return to your own nature. And, that nature is the Truth, Brahman. However, people due to Ignorance (not in a bad sense, but just grammatical meaning or fact), think that religion has to do with one person, one place, or such.
Cyndiben: With apologies, I have to be brief. For your comparitive studies related to Refutation of Buddhist Philosophy: You can study the following:
a) Patanjali Yoga Sutras - Chapter 4 - sutras 15 to 21.
b) Brahmasutra = Chapter 2 (this will be more work).
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org
About Ignorance....I've always wondered if there was a *nicer* way of putting it...I guess not huh?
Thanks Neel, where to find Brahmasutra book?? The work will be in locating one with a decent translation. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Re: ignorance. It takes a long time and a lot of practice to get rid of our emotional response to certain words, doesn't it? I was told once by a teacher that one of my kids was "immature" and it drove me crazy for a long time. I knew that she MEANT the child was young for their grade (they have Sept and November birthdays) and most of their peers in the class were older (ie more "mature") but it still bothered me. As a teacher, she should have known to not use such emtionally charged words with a parent, I think. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Well Tourist, I think its all a matter of perception with words also. Words are so very powerful aren't they? When I saw what Neelbhai had written, I knew what Ignorance was and the way it is taught in the Veda and other philosophy's. My experience and observance of this is when you tell that to a Christian or better yet, say that to someone in the countryside where I live, they get their panties in a wad and start going nuts about it. Like - She called me Stupid, or she thinks I'm not smart, you know, Ignorance??
I have learned not to take so many things so **** personally - without attachment, which is what I love about the Buddhist teachings...it seems to work better in my favor when I practice this lost art, Learning this method the Vedanta way has been an interesting path too...but the emptiness path sure is easier, | |
| | |
| Well, I did not mean any offense when I used the word 'Ignorance'. Whatever word one wants to use: What I meant by Ignorance is a) either not knowing some thing b) or knowing something as what that thing is NOT.
For Brahmasutra book in English, I would not actually recommend any, but if that is the only language one has to read, please see whether you can obtain:
English Translation (NOT English Commentary) of Adi Shankara's Commentary on Brahmasutra. Perhaps this may be published by Advaita Ashram, or Ramakrishna Mission, etc. Do a search.
Neelbhai
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Neelbhai,
What about the one by Swami Sivananda published by the Divine Life Society?? I was able to locate it through my friend at the University Library. That's about as good as it gets I think. Your right, there were a ton of choices but I can't read Sanskrit and it would take Satyam too many hours of frustration trying to explain and translate the text.
Don't worry, you did NOT offend anyone, we were just having an *off* topic conversation about that word and how it is used...then we compared it to other things...it's okay, really | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-09-21 8:14 AM
Dear Brother Bay Guy:
1. Yes, I agree there is NO need to have the word Religion. But, the word already exists. Religion means returning to your own true nature or a path to return to your own nature. And, that nature is the Truth, Brahman. However, people due to Ignorance (not in a bad sense, but just grammatical meaning or fact), think that religion has to do with one person, one place, or such.
2. Hindu means as follows: Hindu is wrong pronuciation of Sindhu. Sindhu is a river on which a very spiritual culture developed which was the Vedic culture. That is why it is called Hindu. Then, when missionary religions such as Buddhism and Christianity came, they named Vedic culture as Hinduism. I think even Gautam Buddha and Jesus Christ were preaching only in the context of the soceity at that time and they had no problem with Hinduism, but their followers who wanted to form an Institution on this name later created a fanatic group. Same thing happened with Muhammad followers. Not only this, but even brahmins of India tried to create a financially or powerful group which was not same as the original meaning of Brahminism. All these led to fighting which is the cause of unrest seen today.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org
Dear Brother Neel,
Yes, I think that the problem of religion often comes down to the problem
of authority. Who is the authority and what does the authority say? So I find
it useful to think about religion without reference to the authorities it may
contain. I have often found that the best ideas can survive critical scrutiny
without having to be protected by historical authority (this is also one of the
problems with Justice Scalia, who dresses up his prejudices in the mantle
of a static, historicist vision of the Constitution).
It is common to dismiss humanist interpretations of religion as being hedonistic
or hewing to the easy road, but such interpretations are simply practical: do our
religious beliefs improve our lives, our relationships, and our society? I can only
believe that any activity deity would insist on such outcomes, so I think that the
pragmatic standard is also theologically meaningful. All of which supports
your statements about ignorance and Truth.
On fantics --- religion has produced so many. It is powerful stuff, and sometimes weak
or needy minds are sucked into horrible and hateful interpretations of that which is
too much for the best of us to absorb.
.... BG | |
| | |
| Yes Brother BG:
Maximum killing has occured in the name of Religion.
neel kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | How can anyone kill in the name of their god? *It breaks my heart*.
............  | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Bay Guy - 2005-09-22 9:19 PM
How can anyone kill in the name of their god? *It breaks my heart*.
............
Have you ever read the Mahabarat BG?? It's very interesting when Krishna talks about fighting and the reasons we sometimes have to do these unpleasant things here on earth. | |
| | |
| Certainly a fascinating discussion.
I reflected on Kulkarnn's sentence for quite some time:
"The main reason all the religious things came into existence is due to personal problems".
Not to take it out of context, he basically says the personal peace must be gained before Universal Truth is realized. (Forgive me if I misconstrue your meaning, K.)
Or in ashram-speak, self-purification is necessary before god-realization is attained. I believe that god-realization is synomous with self-realization. That is, the self is god.
I perceive a certain truth in this line of thinking but can't help thinking that this view is a-historical.
Religion, besides being a spiritual vehicle, is a social entity and by extension a political tool.
In the past and still even in the present, the king. emperoror pharoah was literally considered God on Earth. His rule was sanctified by the divine. Religion or mythology was the state and the law and was often shaped to facilitate control.
And converesely it gave the individual a sense of identity and importance in his or her community. (If you've ever been to a good Bar Mitzvah, you know what I'm talking about.)
I think that only an elite priesthood or elect actually experienced religion/mythology as true illumination.
Reportedly, Jesus taught his disciples more advanced lessons than the masses.
Perhaps, it's a sign of human evolution, that we can, if we choose, follow various paths of spiritual evolution; paths that previously were only available to an elite.
As an aside, I believe that the Hindus view Gautam Buddha as the sixth or seventh incarnation of Lord Vishnu.Something that the Buddhists may or may not appreciate.
Years ago, I read some text by an Hindu author who had his own explanation about what happened when the Rishis sat on their Himalayan mountaintop and transcribed the Vedas.
They first postulated Brahma, or undifferentated non-dualistic energy (very similar if not identical to "The Field" of quantum physics) but it seemed that it was too abstract for humans.
Humans wanted and needed to worship something and thus archetypes, myths and religions, if you will, were invented. And if nothing else the sheer creativity of humanity in creating these symbols should be celebrated.
(Leaving aside the the thorny question of the annunaki or nefilim.)
And perhaps humans get too attached to the symbols of their own creation and forget they're symbols not Absolute Truth.
Wherever these deities are and I believe that they all exist, I doubt that they're all butting heads and arguing about who is the real and only god.
They're probably all wondering if humanity is going to get it together and not destroy itself out of sheer stupidity.
I imagine they would miss being worshipped.
| |
| | |
| Certainly a fascinating discussion.
I reflected on Kulkarnn's sentence for quite some time:
"The main reason all the religious things came into existence is due to personal problems".
Not to take it out of context, he basically says the personal peace must be gained before Universal Truth is realized. (Forgive me if I misconstrue your meaning, K.)
Or in ashram-speak, self-purification is necessary before god-realization is attained. I believe that god-realization is synomous with self-realization. That is, the self is god.
I perceive a certain truth in this line of thinking but can't help thinking that this view is a-historical.
Religion, besides being a spiritual vehicle, is a social entity and by extension a political tool.
In the past and still even in the present, the king. emperoror pharoah was literally considered God on Earth. His rule was sanctified by the divine. Religion or mythology was the state and the law and was often shaped to facilitate control.
And converesely it gave the individual a sense of identity and importance in his or her community. (If you've ever been to a good Bar Mitzvah, you know what I'm talking about.)
I think that only an elite priesthood or elect actually experienced religion/mythology as true illumination.
Reportedly, Jesus taught his disciples more advanced lessons than the masses.
Perhaps, it's a sign of human evolution, that we can, if we choose, follow various paths of spiritual evolution; paths that previously were only available to an elite.
As an aside, I believe that the Hindus view Gautam Buddha as the sixth or seventh incarnation of Lord Vishnu.Something that the Buddhists may or may not appreciate.
Years ago, I read some text by an Hindu author who had his own explanation about what happened when the Rishis sat on their Himalayan mountaintop and transcribed the Vedas.
They first postulated Brahma, or undifferentated non-dualistic energy (very similar if not identical to "The Field" of quantum physics) but it seemed that it was too abstract for humans.
Humans wanted and needed to worship something and thus archetypes, myths and religions, if you will, were invented. And if nothing else the sheer creativity of humanity in creating these symbols should be celebrated.
(Leaving aside the the thorny question of the annunaki or nefilim.)
And perhaps humans get too attached to the symbols of their own creation and forget they're symbols not Absolute Truth.
Wherever these deities are and I believe that they all exist, I doubt that they're all butting heads and arguing about who is the real and only god.
They're probably all wondering if humanity is going to get it together and not destroy itself out of sheer stupidity.
I imagine they would miss being worshipped.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Cyndi - 2005-09-22 9:25 PM
Bay Guy - 2005-09-22 9:19 PM
How can anyone kill in the name of their god? *It breaks my heart*.
............
Have you ever read the Mahabarat BG?? It's very interesting when Krishna talks about fighting and the reasons we sometimes have to do these unpleasant things here on earth.
Well, yes, it's the Bhagavad Gita, and it's really quite interesting that Krshna
tells Arjuna that his duty is to go ahead and kill the opposing soldiers while everything
else that Krshna says completely unscores the concepts of nonviolence...to the extent that
Gandhi often cited the Gita for the underlying philosophy of his nonviolent
political movement! | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Bay Guy - 2005-09-22 9:46 PM
Have you ever read the Mahabarat BG?? It's very interesting when Krishna talks about fighting and the reasons we sometimes have to do these unpleasant things here on earth.
Well, yes, it's the Bhagavad Gita, and it's really quite interesting that Krshna
tells Arjuna that his duty is to go ahead and kill the opposing soldiers while everything
else that Krshna says completely unscores the concepts of nonviolence...to the extent that
Gandhi often cited the Gita for the underlying philosophy of his nonviolent
political movement!
BG, I understand how you feel, really I do. But, we are humans on this earth and there is a time and place for fighting and war. No one wants to come to the table and disuss peace and tranquility...no way, its about conquer and divide, the strongest is the fitest and the competetion thing...hell, its taught in the school class rooms. The problem now is the persons who are making the decisions to fight are not what I call enlightened, spiritual, or even mindful about it at all - on all sides. As much as we would like to be in a perfect spiritual world, it just doesn't exist. Besides, these leaders need to completely experience the karma they are creating. The people in the world need to experience the karma they are creating by supporting it. It's necessary for their evolvement because this is where their minds are.
This is where I see certain people on the spiritual path getting confused when it comes to war and fighting. They have a hard time accepting the fact that this does truly exists in the world and it really must be accepted and dealt with positively and with non-attachment to the outcome of what might happen and what is going to happen. Shiva is going to destroy the earth one day. It will be wiped out and we will start the cycle all over again. This is part of life and its a part of humans coexisting in this world. However, I don't think it is our job to question these things as much as it is to seek enlightenment within ourselves, be the person we want the world to be, and not expect anything back from it, which includes possibly never seeing the outcome of the good that we do because it is a process and a Divine plan at work, we are merely players. The world has to evolve and so do the humans in it. Humans were put here on this planet to discover their-SELVES. Unfortunately, this is how it is done. We cannot suppress the fighting no more than we can suppress the opposite, which is non-violence. There has to be a balance. Besides, what are you going to do in a perfect world anyway?? If the world were perfect, I would not be here, that's for sure. I wouldn't bother coming back. Why would I. We are Diving beings having a Human experience aren't we??
Edited by Cyndi 2005-09-22 10:20 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Hi Cyndi,
I don't agree with you at all. Let's look at it this way: we can control what
we ourselves do, but we can't control others. You or I can decide that we
are not going to participate in murder, even if others in the world do.
Do we defend ourselves and others?... well, of course we do....but killing
beyond even in the sense of killing someone to prevent them from
killing another is wrong...we are only rarely faced with the stark decision
of killing A to prevent the death of B, and if you take that balancing test
out of the question, killing is clearly always evil and wrong.
As for killing in the name god, which is to say for purposes other than the
immediate defense of life, well that is an abomination.
Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-09-22 10:42 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Whoa, that is not what I said, or meant. You misunderstood. I did not say killing anything in the name of God - period, whatsoever.
No, we cannot control others, that is why we have wars. No, we don't have to participate, we have choices that we are personally responsible for. It's interesting Satyam and I have this dicussion all the time. I used to feel exactly how you do - especially since I did practice Buddhism and I believe in non-violence. However, fighting and war is something that cannot be avoided. If it is done, there are ways of handling war and there is a proper time for it - go re-read the Mahabarat. In the Hindu culture they have the Chetria's - the warriors and protector's. They fight against evil are very brave and strong. Not everyone is capable of protecting or defending. To bring peace, sometimes you have to go through violence. It's all about bringing balance. | |
| | |
| As for above statements related to Bhagavadgita:
There are two types of scriptures in the Indian Philsophy. One - which are applicable in the Social sense, and the other for Spiritual Realization.
Spiritual Realization can be taught in a social sense to some extent. However, the practice is always individual. Whereas the social teaching is where social phenomena, etc. come into picture.
Bhagavadgita is a Science of Yoga extracted for Spiritual Realization from the Mahabharata Epic which is a Social Teaching. Veda Vyasa wrote Mahabharata for the society, and this formed various ceremonies existing in the Indian society now. Whereas, he himself distilled the spiritual understanding in BG, which is a dialog between Arjuna and Krishna. The starting point of it is: Arjuna does not want to fight because his relatives and teachers are on the other side. He has already chosen to fight because Kauravas have refused all decency, and completely captured the entire kingdom of Pandavas, even refusing to give 5 small villages to Pandavas, and also other such things as stripping off Draupadi, etc. Now, Krishna is giving him the knowledge to remove his ignorance and NOT to provoke him to fight, as sometimes misunderstood. krishna himself tried to stop all fighting by acting as a peace messager in the court of Dhrutarashtra who did not pay any heed. ETC ETC. Anyway, if one understands what BG is, then it is: How by following Karmayoga or Jnanayoga one can obtain Spiritual Realization. BG has not much to do with the fighting as such.
Also: How one can kill in the name of GOD: BG says when one's wisdom is lost, one perishes. kamat sanjayate krodha, krodhat bhavati samohah, samohat smritivibhramah. smritibramshat buddhinasho, buddhinashat pranashyati. The main difference between humans and all other animals is Intellect (verses Instinct). When, intellect is lost that is impaired, humans can do anything.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Neel,
Maybe BG -not Bay Guy, does not teach fighting from the spiritual realization, but in the Social Sense it is taught how to avoid as you said, but sometimes necessary. At least that is my recollection of the story. Even in the Bible they had stories such as this.
All I am saying is that this is part of our life that most of us see in the world today with the five senses, that we must accept. We don't have to accept that it is right or wrong, I am merely saying accept it as a part of what is happening in the world today. Sure, we can do lots of things to make the world a better place - at least we can try individually and sometimes collectively. We can act as peacekeepers and do the necessary things to bring about peace, but that is not always going to the outcome. I'm saying "Why live in an airy fairy" world and close my eyes and say, this is not happening..when in fact, it really is a reality - one of the realities of very many outcomes.
If someone breaks in my house tonight and tries to hurt me or my daughter. I have a gun and I will kill that person. That is the bottom line. Sure, I've locked my doors, I've done everything I possibly can to avoid it. I will also give the person fair warning again, even though he or she is trespassing, and when they strike, I'm going to strike back in self defense. As for the karmic results of that, well that will be my karma and I will deal with it. That does not make me an evil person and it does not mean that is what I think about every day or keep in my mind. I just accept that this is part of living in a non-perfect world and I do what is necessary. Does that make me a bad Yogi for killing..that I don't know, I really don't think so.... but I will chant mantra's, I will do pooja and I will accept whatever karma I have done. I will also have a tremendous amount of compassion for the person I may have to kill and I pray for his moksha.
Oh well, BG, this is an interesting subject to say the least. I just hope and pray I never have to kill anyone.
Edited by Cyndi 2005-09-23 12:19 AM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Cyndi - 2005-09-23 12:11 AM
If someone breaks in my house tonight and tries to hurt me or my daughter. I have a gun and I will kill that person. That is the bottom line. Sure, I've locked my doors, I've done everything I possibly can to avoid it. I will also give the person fair warning again, even though he or she is trespassing, and when they strike, I'm going to strike back in self defense.
Oh well, BG, this is an interesting subject to say the least. I just hope and pray I never have to kill anyone.
Cyndi --- This is the balance test to which I referred, and the reality of our world. Sometimes
we are pushed to make such choices, and few would let their loved ones die in order to avoid
killing...but as Neel mentioned, we have intellect that often allows us to prevent such
situations from arising in the first place. If I don't solve my problems with name-calling,
I am less likely to get into a fist fight. If I don't own a gun, people in my household are
less likely to die from gunshot. If I don't go to war, I am less likely to kill
someone than if I do go to war. If I don't take my neighbor's food and water, he is
less likely to attack me for his own survival. And so on. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Bay Guy - 2005-09-23 7:37 AM
Cyndi --- This is the balance test to which I referred, and the reality of our world. Sometimes
we are pushed to make such choices, and few would let their loved ones die in order to avoid
killing...but as Neel mentioned, we have intellect that often allows us to prevent such
situations from arising in the first place. If I don't solve my problems with name-calling,
I am less likely to get into a fist fight. If I don't own a gun, people in my household are
less likely to die from gunshot. If I don't go to war, I am less likely to kill
someone than if I do go to war. If I don't take my neighbor's food and water, he is
less likely to attack me for his own survival. And so on.
BG, that's a good way of thinking, no doubt. It's just not a reality. It may or may not be for some people. Just because I own a gun doesn't mean I have to use it either. I can call names all day to a ravaged individual who is hell bent and determined to kill me, it may or may not work. Sure, I'll give it my best shot...but that may or may not solve the problem. Have you ever had to shoot anyone??? I have, and that's all I have to say about the matter. The person didn't die, but they almost did.
You really should be careful about how you *judge* things, otherwise you might find yourself faced with something you never imagined in a million years...you may have to face your karma one day. Or better yet, you yourself might be faced with the barrel of a gun one day too! I hope not, for your sake, but never say never. Be careful about where you place yourself on your pedestal.
Edited by Cyndi 2005-09-23 9:08 AM
| |
| | |
| one of the things that has come out of my more recent readings of the BG is the sense of duty and how there are these two layers--as neel refers to them the social and the spiritual realization.
on the one hand, we are living in this reality where there is violence and on occassion we may have to defend ourselves. this is the larger, social context of the BG as i've read it, and that there is a certain duty among certain individuals and classes (warrior and protector groups--not meant in a heirarchy structure). When doing their duty, socially, and still keeping their minds and hearts of Krishna (or God) or on the larger picture (spiritual realization layer), then there is no karmic impact on them, the process of war can lead to realization if approached properly, etc.
interestingly enough, along with this i fell into some amazing research regarding vedic/indian martial arts. in what i have read, they teach the healing practices first, and then how those healing practices can be used in a martial sense--and the duty that the warrior has to himself and to his combatants to use both of these tools at the appropriate times (in battle, and to heal after battle).
and in another space entirely, my husband is doing extensive research on the worship of Oden (norse god of war, poetry, etc) via the 'berserks' which were a particular class of warriors. Before going to war, they would do a ritualized dance that enduces an ecstatic state--a state of union with Oden--which would then lead to a battle process that is in the spiritual realization category and not just a social mechanism. Similarly, these warriors were considered resistant to injury (in the same way that many indian/vedic warriors apparently were/are) because of their ecstatic state, and they also had healing abilities and methods that they were taught and were expected to use throughout the battle process and afterwards.
Anyway, very interesting cultural mirrors on the nature of a social war and a certain mindset leading to a spiritual revelation for individuals and groups. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | This thread reminded me of something my Guru once said. He said, "Fish can't live in too clean of water".
| |
| | |
| Cyndiben:
I like all what you wrote. Others:
Karmic law works like this: When one performs any action, whatever it is, he/she knows the intention behind that action. That intention is what creates the future karma. So, if Cyndiben kills a burglar who has attacked her family at midnight or her baby, she is NOT killing the person for killing that person, but to save the baby. This will create a divine karma. And, that is what Shree Krishna is telling Arjuna to do. He is telling him he should fight because it is his duty now to save India from the hands of evil Kauravas. Same, as Cyndiben's duty to save her child. But, what Cyndiben should do the same even if the burglar is her cousin or teacher, whereas Arjuna was confusing his relations with the evil army.
One's actions are in the context of situation, but one's intentions are what creates Karma. At the time of Buddhist philosophy or whatever such, one has to see what the contextual situation is. One should not apply social teachings given in one contextual situation to other situations. And, that is what fanatic Religions do and therefore it creates wars/fighhts/killing and the intention behind that war/killing is NOT divine like that of Cyndiben, but it is for converting people to their own belief developed from a contextual situation. In Indian Philosophy, they are not muh worried about names of paths, they say, ekam sat sadvipra bahuda vadanti. There is a single truth, which described by many in many words. Also, there many paths to reach the same truth. So, the name of religion is not important to them. But, they already know that the truth is only one, called as Brahman, Allah, God, whatever. And, all other things such as material things, Including Society, are transitory at that the Self Realization.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Thank you Neelbhai. Whew!! I made it last night, didn't have to use my gun,
Seriously, I posted earlier about my experience of shooting someone. I really don't want to get into too many details about that event. However, I can certainly relate to Arjuna, because I was dealing with a person who was very close to me, my son's Father. I was so grateful to have so much support from friends, family and even the DA who was trying to prosecute me at that time.
Today, 16 years later, I can sit in the same room with my Son's Father and have a conversation, we have been through a lot. The karmic outcome could of been much worse, but it was not and I'm very grateful for that. As for why it happened, I cannot answer that, but I can say that the experience was necessary and changed so many things about my life and my son's Father's life. You have no idea. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Cyndi, that sounds like a very trying experience, to say the least!
I think that I have been saying all along that killing is contextual, in
the sense that we may be trapped into killing in order to save a life.
I am not going to argue that point, since we all seem to agree on it.
I will continue to say that killing in the name of religion ("in god's name")
is abhorrent. That's killing over matter of belief and principle alone.
With regard to Brother Neel's comments about doing one's duty, I am
left a bit puzzled. There are many ways to accomplish good ends, and
we are clever enough that we can usually manage this without killing our
opponents. As a case in point, I will ask whether Gandhi-ji did his duty
when he opposed the British in a non-violent way or whether he might
better have resorted to armed conflict.
BG | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | BG, this is what the Muslims have been arguing for all these years. This is what some Hindu's do in Nepal when they kill chickens to offer to Kali. I agree that this is so ridiculous and even in Nepal, the priests have been outraged at these instances in Nepal where this practice continues.
To say that there are many ways to accomplish good ends without killing our opponents is False. There are ways that we would like to see that happen, we all share that view of NOT wanting to kill, but sometimes it is most definitely necessary. It is unfortunate. What is even more really unfortunate is that for someone NOT to see that this may have to be this way. To sit by and watch, to participate by letting suffering continue due to someone's lack or inability to kill due to improper thinking to possibly have to kill in order to end suffering is a potential for a great sin or paap. We must be able to make that judgement - that is our duty as human beings and to NOT do so is also lazy and/or basically a lack of courage or being a chicken. (I know you are going to hate me for saying that, ) | |
| | |
| Dear BG:
I agree with Cyndiben above. Additionally, in the example of Gandhiji, whom I bow down any time:
a) He could not have defeated British by resorting to guns. He would be defeated in that battle. British were more powerful, I mean cruel, cunning, powerful, and evil. If he resorted to guns, there would have been more loss. Many before Gandhi tried such a thing without success.
b) I did NOT mean: Gandhiji took the path of nonviolence because he could NOT have resorted to guns. I am just stating that he would have lost in that.
c) As Cyndiben correctly said, Gandhijji found a better way to oppose British, which British understood and had to accept. But, if British were stupid (they were cunning and evil, but NOT stupid), and they tried to be Brutal without understanding Gandhiji's nonviolence, then he has to resort to killing them. That was the fact with Kauravas. They were evil, stupified (as was Duryodhana was their leader) and egotistic. So, the only means at that time was to kill them, which was Arjuna's duty as he was leader of the society. What Shree Krishna told him was : Do your duty without thinking of its fruits, and without mixing your relations who are fighting from the enemy side. This is same as do not give a job to bad candidate only because he is your relative.
Peace
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Dear Brother Neel and Cyndi,
Let me offer the following. The situation of Arjuna and the Kauravas is too
simple a situation. Arjuna is confronted with a perfectly evil and unredeemable
enemy, and he has a deity, Sri Krishna, telling him that it's okay to kill them.
When we step outside of the ancient text, we humans are *never* given the
kind of certainty that Krishna provides to Arjuna. We are never confronted
with a perfectly evil enemy. We are confronted with other human beings with
human problems and motivations. And there's no deity standing at our side
telling us whether or not to raise our bow. We have to decide for ourselves.
The enemies that we meet are evil by degrees. Some are worse than others, some are
more aggressive or more threatening. Some cause us more lasting pain or inconvience.
Deciding which, if any, of these evil people to kill is a matter of interpretation, situation,
and also of the respect with which you regard human life.
Which brings me back to Krishna, who speaks of seeing oneself in the eyes of others,
who speaks as god of being part of all that lives. What Krishna says is to be
compassionate, free of attachment, and filled with love every human being.
I find nothing in those ideas to support killing off people when those people are
flawed...those ideas speak of helping flawed people to overcome their evils.
When I tell people that we should not kill, I am sometimes told that I am "naive"
or that this thought is "impractical" or "unrealistic". All three charges are true if
one accepts that the world has to remain full of evil and killing. But that's like saying
don't try to cure smallpox because everyone knows that it's simply part of life.
It's like saying that we should never aspire toward our best instincts. It's like saying
that we can be no better than the worst of us. That kind of thinking has never taken
us anywhere. And I don't get that message from the Bhagavad Gita.
Om shanti,
Bay Guy | |
| | |
| neel:
in regards to karmic law et al, that has long been my understanding of karma as well as my belief in regards to religion. this is why i always find it funny or unusual that people would have a problem with blending religions or learning from multiple religions or practicing different religious practices simultaneously. To me, it's all going to the same place/source/idea/whatever, and therefore being catholic is being hindu is being buddhist is being whatever--and learning from all of these illuminates the whole process.
what is interesting for me is the vegetarianism arguments. I often tell people that they should try vegetarianism to see if it is right for them. That the intention behind eating is not per se uncompassionate. That if one needs nutrients, and one can only gain those nutrients from particular sources, then there is no harm (karmic) in doing so because the intent isn't to wantonly kill animals, but rather to eat and be healthy. i also find that it's hard to convince other vegetarians of this possibility as well. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| All - great discussion. I don't want to get too deeply into it myself because my understanding is less than encyclopedic but here's a small thought. From my first reading of the BG, my sense was that Krishna was mainly reminding Arjuna to practice diligenlty and all his doubts would be erased. I think he is saying that if one does the yogic practices well and with tapas, he will always be able to do his duty, will always have God foremost in his heart and always act from a place of compassion, truth, justice etc. Westerners go to war because "I spoke to God and God said I'm right" whereas Krishna is saying "if you do your practice and purify your mind/body/spirit, you will KNOW what is right and not need me hanging around in your chariot telling you what to do and how to proceed." | |
| | |
| Dear Zoebird:
You brought up an interesting statement. As for Vegetarianism, your arguement needs to be thought little more carefully. One should not kill animal because one is not getting nutrient from another source. Because, this logic can be extended to killing one's own human friend or relative in order to get such a nutrient when otherwise not available. The fact is that a normal human being does not do such an activity, and is therefore called as Murder if one does. In the same manner, a normal human being never never never feels like eating an animal for food. The only way a normal human being can consume food is: a)by Habit or habitual practice b) by modifying the animal into a palatable substance for excessive cooking, and condiments, etc. (OF course, this applies to lot of vegetarian food as well, which is not a human food really. For example, eating dried lentils called Dal in Indian cousine is a habit developed by making the Dal palatable by cooking and adding spices. Of course, it tastes good.) Of course, eating Dal is not killing an animal. Thus, in general vegetarian food is correct, animal food is wrong. And, all vegetarian food is not ideal, but does not involve killing.
As for learning from all source as you wrote: learning from all sources may be OK, but it is NOT essential. In fact, it is not possible due to various reasons. Many a times from one good source is beter.
Dear sister Tourist:
Where did you get the ideas you presented? Are they from a source or your own ?
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Neel - just my own weird thoughts. We are encouraged to look at the BG at least once a year for an assignment or two. It doesn't matter so much if our ideas agree with traditional commentaries. The main thing is that we can learn from them and help with our own practices. I still say the main thing it says to me is that I must practice diligently. | |
| | |
| elson - 2005-09-01 12:36 PM
Hey TGirl :-)
Yep, from the point of view of a Protestant Systematic Theology, the bible has several interesting things to say about Asana practice:
1) Physical training is of some value to the Christian life. Since asana trains the body in strength, flexibility, concentration, relaxation, increased O2 (if you are doing breathing exercises), &etc, then it is of at least equal value to the Christian life as running or aerobics or dance.
2) God looks at the heart, not the hands. That isn't to say that He doesn't care if your hands are holding up a liquor store :-). but His main concern is with your heart/ intentions. That principle is paired with the next one...
3) Worship is not a vague thing, but a specific interaction between God and man. If a person in a Christian church sings hymns to God and raises his hands and takes notes on the sermon and gives money for the work of the church, and outwardly seems to be doing everything to worship God - but if he is doing it for some reason other than just the love of God - then it is not worship.
4) Combining points 2 & 3, the yoga class that I most value is an Anusara class, which is all eat up with Tantra and God as a she, and we have a devotional at the beginning of class, and much of the asana is spoken of as an offering. In short, I am in the middle of a new age/buddhist worship service or sorts.
Since I am not offering worship to their dieties, I do not sin in that. Also, the motions that they offer to their gods are not worship in the Christian sense. Their heart attitude is their worship (in Xtn doctrine). So since I do share their heart attitude, I do not sin.
There are a couple of other important points that bear thought. First, You and I need to be careful that we do not lead our weaker brothers into sin. In other words, if I practice yoga freely because my conscience is clear, but my brother thinks that there is something sinful about it, then I cannot allow my example to lead him to do something that he considers sinful. So if my practice of yoga is a danger to the faith of another Christian, then I need to do something aout that (like teach him a better understanding of theology, so that he then understands correctly that the matter is not inherently sinful.
The other point, that is most important to you, is to look deeply within yourself every class to make sure that your faith is not being changed by the Buddhist teaching.
Dale
I know that I am late to this thread but afther reading the majority of this posts in this thread. I like what you said Dale.
Ash | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2005-09-25 11:19 PM
Dear Zoebird:
You brought up an interesting statement. As for Vegetarianism, your arguement needs to be thought little more carefully.
of course, i only paraphrased. it has been my experience through a great deal of research and personal experimentation (as i am a lacto-ovo vegetarian--and i eat mostly raw foods) as well as observation, that not all humans can survive and thrive on raw vegetarian, raw vegan, or even only somewhat raw vegetarian or vegan diets. So, they must find food sources that provide them with the necessary amounts of nutrients--and those sources may be animal sources.
there are, of course, vibrant philosophical and ethical reasons for being vegetarian. I think, though, that many vegetarians (at least many western vegetarians) confuse the philosophy and the nutritional science. While vegetarianism can be healthy nutritionally for many people, it may not be feasible for everyone. If not. then they must seek other sources--which can include animals. Many vegetarians assume that 'everyone can be a vegetarian'--but i simply do not observe that this is the case.
I agree, though, that a large part as to why many people do not even consider vegetarianism is because of ignorance, fear, and habit. First, many people do not know where their food comes from, how it got to be from living animal to seared meat on the plate. they don't know the nutritional value of food in general. they don't know the problems of eating meat or eating vegetarian. they don't know the benefits of each one either. And, they don't know, or won't engage the philosophical or spiritual arguments for engaging vegetarianism.
as for fear, people have many. I find that many people fear 'standing out' or 'being different' from their families. I know that when i mention to people that i'm vegetarian, many will say "i could never do that, because so much of my family is about food!" of course, they're refering to those fun family holidays where you have large meals. I'm really not different from them--my family also likes to take meals together! And, of course, my family is omnivorous as well. We have adapted our family meals to be inclusive, and when we have holidays together, we have some meals all vegetarian and some meals that have plenty for me and includes meat. So, adjustments--social adjustments--can be made if vegetarianism is something that you want to do. Also, people fear for their health and wellbeing. There is a lot of misinformation about vegetarianism out there, as well as a lot of ignorance in general, and people fear getting sick as a vegetarian. So, these sorts of thigns put them off.
but i think it's habit that is the main reason why many people continue to eat meat. It's what they know, it's what they understand, it's what they believe is healthiest, it's what their family does, it's what their culture does. So, they go along out of habit.
One should not kill animal because one is not getting nutrient from another source. Because, this logic can be extended to killing one's own human friend or relative in order to get such a nutrient when otherwise not available.
actually, this is a logical fallacy called a 'slippery slope' argument. So this argument needs to be reconsidered.
The fact is that a normal human being does not do such an activity, and is therefore called as Murder if one does. In the same manner, a normal human being never never never feels like eating an animal for food.
it is difficult to define 'normal.' Also, considering food availability across climates and cultures, it makes sense that arid areas would have more meat eating than lush, temperate or tropical areas. The food availability is different. So, what is normal in the arctic or in the desert is going to be very different than what is normal in a lush region. 'normal' is largely a matter of cultural determination.
but, across cultures, there is this concept of 'murder.' across cultures, it refers to the treatment of humans, not to the treatment of animals (although some people would like that language changed to include animals).
The only way a normal human being can consume food is: a)by Habit or habitual practice b) by modifying the animal into a palatable substance for excessive cooking, and condiments, etc.
actually, many people eat raw animal products. Sushi and sushimi is raw fish. there is also raw dairy and many foods thta are raw eggs. many people consume raw or rare meats from land animals as well. There are many ways to eat meats, and many of them can be and are consumed raw on a regular basis.
Similarly, cooking has it's benefits. IN the case of oxolates in certain greens, cooking actually breaks these down and makes the nutrients more absorbable. For those with various stomach needs or specialized digestive needs, the process of cooking can help them access nutrients more effienciently. cooking has multiple benefits for many kinds of foods.
Thus, in general vegetarian food is correct, animal food is wrong.
obviously, i found many of your previous arguments flawed, and therefore i cannot agree with this 'thus.'
And, all vegetarian food is not ideal, but does not involve killing.
i agree that not all vegetarian food is not idea, but some vegetarian food, at least in the modern context, does involve killing. Consuming eggs and milk products often causes the deaths of chickens and cows in multiple ways (when they no longer produce, male calves becoming veal, etc). So, even vegetarian food can have some killing component, even if it is not direct. This is why sourcing is so important for many vegetarians.
As for learning from all source as you wrote: learning from all sources may be OK, but it is NOT essential.
i completely agree that it is not essential. I think that it is appropriate, enlightening, fun, and incredibly useful. I have no problem if someone else doens't want to do it. THe only time i have a problem with someone else (and it's not a big problem) is when they say that *I* or *someone else* shouldn't do it, or that it's wrong, or that there is only one religion that is right or that one is better than another. Most of these things are matters of preference and opinion. I have a preference for cross-cultural study. Others do not. I can accept this, but often there isn't a lot of reciprocity.
In fact, it is not possible due to various reasons. Many a times from one good source is beter.
one good source can be valuable, and one can spend a lifetime on one source. But one can also spend a lifetime on one idea, and gain insight from many sources regarding this idea. Sometimes, that's better.
Thanks for the great discussion. I look forward to more of your insights. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Bay Guy - 2005-09-24 11:55 PM
Dear Brother Neel and Cyndi,
Let me offer the following. The situation of Arjuna and the Kauravas is too
simple a situation. Arjuna is confronted with a perfectly evil and unredeemable
enemy, and he has a deity, Sri Krishna, telling him that it's okay to kill them.
When we step outside of the ancient text, we humans are *never* given the
kind of certainty that Krishna provides to Arjuna. We are never confronted
with a perfectly evil enemy. We are confronted with other human beings with
human problems and motivations. And there's no deity standing at our side
telling us whether or not to raise our bow. We have to decide for ourselves.
\
Namaste` BG,
What's wrong with simplicity?? Why does it have to be complicated??
As for your comments about "humans are never given the kind of certainty that Krishna provides to Arjuna." Yes, we are given this kind of certainty...every moment that certainty is available to us....every single moment. The problem is that most humans are not confident enough and/or do NOT believe that this certainty exists and/or that they are capable of having this certainty, therefore...your right, it is not available...but only because of ignorance or by choice of not wanting to tap into that Divine source within us all...so to speak. Yes, there are leaders and human beings out there in the world making half hazard, mindless, not looking at the bigger picture based on impurities of the mind, choices and decisions that affect millions of lives every day. | |
| | |
| Dear ZoeBird:
I do thank you and also accept some flaws in my statements. However, my statements as you correctly said come from Philosophical point of view rather than only Nutrition point of view. Nutrition only for getting otherwise unavailable nutrients means Body Focus to me. And, I was not aware, due to my ignorance of the fact, that there are people who directly feel like eating raw meat while in their natural condition. Now, the example you gave is that of Fish and such. But, I am not aware of anyone who would like to eat live chicken, or cow, or goat, or dear or rabbit for that matter. But, that may exist. I am now getting scared. But, I still agree with your points related to Nutrition.
Now, as for me, at least to my best guess, I shall possibly die but not eat any meat to keep myself alive when nutrients are not available. Because, for me the benefit achieved by keeping the body alive is much less than the loss I shall incur due to eating meat. But, again, I am not forcing this on others.
But, I did like your posting the way you have explained and respect it.
Regards
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | kulkarnn - 2005-09-26 11:12 PM
But, I am not aware of anyone who would like to eat live chicken, or cow, or goat, or dear or rabbit for that matter. But, that may exist. I am now getting scared. But, I still agree with your points related to Nutrition.
Neelbhai,
Well, if you are referring to *dear* as in dear human, I am getting scared with you. Last time I checked there was such an animal called a Deer though,
You'll really freak out when you learn about what *Steak Tartar* is all about..it's something relatively familiar to Sushi and Shashimi except with Beef.
I prefer my Sushi in the California Roll style....which consists of seaweed, avocado, and veggies. No *raw* meat for me, no way. I learned a valuable lesson 21 years ago with Raw Oysters on the half shell! Take care, | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2005-09-26 11:12 PM
However, my statements as you correctly said come from Philosophical point of view rather than only Nutrition point of view.
i got that feeling or sense from reading your post, which is why i mentioned it. In fact, i find these arguments or ideas far more intreging than the nutritional arguments for vegetarianism.
for me, nutritional studies and the cultural studies that surround it are fascinating, interesting, and even fun to consider. it's a personal joy and hobby. certainly, i don't think that it's a topic that interests everyone!
And, I was not aware, due to my ignorance of the fact, that there are people who directly feel like eating raw meat while in their natural condition. Now, the example you gave is that of Fish and such. But, I am not aware of anyone who would like to eat live chicken, or cow, or goat, or dear or rabbit for that matter. But, that may exist. I am now getting scared.
it does. people eat raw beef, poultry, and even wild game. it's rather fascinating. Many people even consume raw blood from living animals (the animal, still alive, is pricked, the blood taken and consumed, and the animal still lives because they simply bind the small prick with a bit of mud and herbs). It's actually quite amazing what humans can and do eat, throughout the world.
Now, as for me, at least to my best guess, I shall possibly die but not eat any meat to keep myself alive when nutrients are not available. Because, for me the benefit achieved by keeping the body alive is much less than the loss I shall incur due to eating meat. But, again, I am not forcing this on others.
i know many people who also follow this sentiment--both east and west--and not the least of which is Ghandiji. When we went to england for his studies, he vowed for his mother that he would not eat any animal products (vegan diet in the modern sense). While in england, he became gravely ill, and through a discussion with his doctor and about the restrictions of the vow--he was convinced that drinking goats milk--which the doctor felt was necessary--would not break the vow, as it was predominently about cows. Until the end of his days, he consume goats milk.
but after this experience, and inhis may writings about the nonviolence stance that he took, he stated that he would never eat meat to save himself, because of this philosophical notion (among others) that you mention.
But, there are other perspectives in the east, particularly in ayurvedic circles. Sometimes, meats are used for a time to heal the body, then the person transitions back to a vegetarian diet that suits their particular needs. other times, they may consume meat throughout their lives.
in other vedic traditions, such as the sikh tradition, there are many phrases about how vegetarianism or nonvegetarianism doens't inhibit the 'salvation' (for lack of a better word) progress of the individual. in many buddhist circles, it's not the meat that's the problem but the intention. if the animal was killed to feed the village, and the village supports the monk, then the monk eats. If the cow was killed to celebreate or honor the monk, then the monk cannot eat.
So, there are also various philosophical perspectives--many of which are valuable for understanding the diversity of reasons for choosing vegetarianism. Like you said, there's no point in pushing a rule on someone else!
But, I did like your posting the way you have explained and respect it.
thank you. i also greatly admire your perspective and agree with it personally in many ways. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
In all this discussion of vegetarianism, particularly in connection with
statements that one would perish before eating meat, how can a
vegetarian ever justify killing? If you won't eat meat to live, then
how could you kill to survive? Yes, I'm being picky and I know it,
but I find contradictions to be very useful in thinking about principles...
... we learn a great deal from the soft spots in our reasoning...here I am
a person who eats meat and objects to killing people. Help me figure this
out.
| |
| | |
| Dear Brother BG:
Since you asked for figuring this out, let me give it a try:
You have eaten meat probably before you became mature, that is from your childhood. So, that became your habit. And, later not eating meat can appear only if you get convinced, and you choose to. Also, on choosing for YES, you will go through past withdrawl, and may start eating again. If you choose NO, then you stay as you are.
Now, I am sure you have NOT killed people since your childhood. If you frequently killed people regularly, you shall get the same withdrawl in stopping to kill. However, even then, you can choose to NO kill.
Now, eating and killing are two different things. Most people who eat meat will not like to kill that animal. Or, is that what you meant? I thought you meant killing people, such as in war. In the past, when White people came to USA and killed thousands of Native Indians, they did not feel killing any problem. It was difficult for them later, NOT to kill.
Peace from NO Kill and NO Meat
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Dear Brother Neel,
You are correct in concluding that I have never killed another human being and that
I have eaten meat since childhood. [To the best of my knowledge, my ancestors have
killed no native americans, although it is possible that they did so and chose not to
add that to our family history. Still, many of my ancestors left diaries describing in some
detail their disgust for those who enslaved or killed others. It's hard to be certain of our
own history, and, in any event, we are not responsible for the acts of our forebearers.]
In fact, what I meant was this: I eat meat from animals that others have killed,
but I object to the killing of human beings. What bothers me is this: can we
say that it is acceptable to kill human beings while saying that it is unacceptable
to kill animals; or, can we say that it is unacceptable to kill human beings while saying
that it is acceptable to kill animals. There are two points here: is a human life different
from an animal life, and is the purpose of the killing (food, anger, defence) relevant
to the moral judgment?
Sigh, so late at night to be asking such questions....
Jaya Ganesha,
Bay Guy
| |
| | |
| Brothe BG:
Jay Shree Ganesha. When I wrote about White people killing American Indians, I did NOT mean your connection at all. I do not know anything of your background. My wife is white and she is divine. I only gave that event to prove my point.
Now, coming to your question: Killing Animal for eating is wrong Philosophically as much as Killing Human for eating. Killing Animal or Human in case of extreme need as described by Cyndiben (for example, in case of personal defense to save life, or in case of benefit of others when no other way seems to work, etc.) are considered equally acceptable.
Brother Neel
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
| There are two points here: is a human life different
from an animal life, and is the purpose of the killing (food, anger, defence) relevant
to the moral judgment?
in many modern vegetarian and animal rights circles, the question of human life and animal life being different or the same is called an argument or discussion of "speciesism" and that may help you with a web search for some interesting arguments.
to the second issue, i think that the purpose of the killing is relevant to moral judgement, in fact reason is the basis of judgement to begin with. there arguments or discussions are reasoned, and one reasons with them, and then makes a judgement accordingly. The purpose or intent is what really determines the 'culpability' in regards to the action.
i liked neel's description too, in response to this.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-09-28 10:10 AM
Brothe BG:
Jay Shree Ganesha. When I wrote about White people killing American Indians, I did NOT mean your connection at all. I do not know anything of your background. My wife is white and she is divine. I only gave that event to prove my point.
Now, coming to your question: Killing Animal for eating is wrong Philosophically as much as Killing Human for eating. Killing Animal or Human in case of extreme need as described by Cyndiben (for example, in case of personal defense to save life, or in case of benefit of others when no other way seems to work, etc.) are considered equally acceptable.
Brother Neel
www.authenticyoga.org
Dear Brother Neel,
Do not worry, I took no offense and answered the comment only so that it would be answered.
Let me try this all in still another way. If I have the choice between saving
my own life and saving another's life (for whatever made-up reason we need in
order to pose this question), am I wrong to save my own in preference to the other's?
Or should we prefer the life of another to our own?
I can answer this only subjectively. I would almost undoubtedly save my own child's
life before mine, but some of my coworkers would certainly not be saved. Perhaps
I am just a normal human being in that regard, and perhaps the question that I have
posed is simply not meaningful; but if the question is meaningful, then I think it goes
to the root of all this discussion of killing or not killing. For, if we can kill to save ourselves,
then does it not follow that we can kill for other matters of our own love or convenience?
Om Sri Ganeshaya nama,
BG
| |
| | |
| Dear Brother BG:
Thanks for taking no offense. Now, let me try to understand and/or answer your question asked by you in a certain way:
Saving your life or another person's is an activity. The intention behind that activity is altogether different thing. That intention decides what the karma is. For example, if you are saving your child's life because that child will feed you later or be grateful to you later or whatever, that is one thing. If you saved your child's life because you love the child as it is, then it is another thing. If you see no difference between yourself and the child as you have philsophically digested the idea that both of you are the same self, that is third thing. ETC ETC. Now, whatever the intention of that activity, the karma will be present. When the Karma is done one definitely has Intention. When, one does karma without expectation of any fruit for oneself, that is called Selfless work or Nishkama Karma. By performing this, one follows Karmayoga, and ultimately realizes the Self. On realizing self, one can not perform Karma, that means one performs activity, without creating karma.
All activities with Karma create kleshas. parinaamtaapsanskardukhairgunavrittivirodhachcha dukhameva sarvam vivekinah. Patanjali - 2nd chapter. A real wise person comes to know thall things in the material world create dukha, sorrow. Therefore, he aspires for liberation, kaivalyam.
Brother Neel
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
| Let me try this all in still another way. If I have the choice between saving
my own life and saving another's life (for whatever made-up reason we need in
order to pose this question), am I wrong to save my own in preference to the other's?
Or should we prefer the life of another to our own?
i think that these are very valuable questions, particularly when we're talking abuot health and vitality arguments in relationship to vegetarianism. If killing an animal such that you can eat it allows you to be healthy such that you can have discussions about karma or save people's lives as a doctor, or make some other valuable social contribution, does that change the karmic situation or karmic outcome?
i think that it does.
I can answer this only subjectively. I would almost undoubtedly save my own child's
life before mine, but some of my coworkers would certainly not be saved. Perhaps
I am just a normal human being in that regard, and perhaps the question that I have
posed is simply not meaningful; but if the question is meaningful, then I think it goes
to the root of all this discussion of killing or not killing. For, if we can kill to save ourselves,
then does it not follow that we can kill for other matters of our own love or convenience?
most of these things are subjective. just because it's subjective doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. All things have context, it's how we think about it in light of the context that seems to make the difference.
It is likely that if you had to choose between your life and the life of your child, you would choose your child because of your hopes for and love for that child. Similarly, if you had to step in to save a coworker, it is likely that you might just do that--that something heroic--because its' the right thing to do or you simply care about people in general, your coworker included.
I think that a person can kill for any number of reasons. The question is, then, whether or not they should and how that is determined. Generally speaking, self defense and defense of other are socially considered the most appropriate reasons for killing human beings or animals. Certainly, one would kill an attacking bear as one would kill an attacking woman or man.
when we talk about killing in light of animals, we're also taking on another social (subjective) layer that often has to do with how we view animals, the purpose of animals, how we think animals should be treated, and balance these things with what we know to be our physical health needs and our understanding of nutrition.
i think that some people do have to choose between death and vegetarianism. people can become incredibly sick from a vegetarian diet, and their best option is to consume meat. So, if one has to choose, say, between saving themselves and saving an animal--most people would save themselves. This may be a mere matter of instinct to live or it may be something more philosophical or ideological or even simply social. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | zoebird - 2005-09-29 1:34 PM
I can answer this only subjectively. I would almost undoubtedly save my own child's
life before mine, but some of my coworkers would certainly not be saved. Perhaps
I am just a normal human being in that regard, and perhaps the question that I have
posed is simply not meaningful; but if the question is meaningful, then I think it goes
to the root of all this discussion of killing or not killing. For, if we can kill to save ourselves,
then does it not follow that we can kill for other matters of our own love or convenience?
This reminds me of a movie with McCauley Caulkin the Home Alone kid. He played in a movie once about these 2 kids in this family. I forget which one was the really bad, nasty kid...I mean really bad and evil. At the end of the movie, the Mother had to make a decision on whether or not which kid she was going to save from falling off this cliff, which I believe was caused by the bad kid. Needless to say, she chose the good kid.
In all due respect, let's just say for a moment. What if she chose the bad kid instead?? If I looked at this situation with a different perspective, what if she saved this bad kid and somehow this kid would have had a second chance to make his life right and get his act together. Of course, seeing as how things were going in this movie, that kid would have needed a really big 2 x 4 to get his attention, but by letting the bad kid die, he did not have a chance to make it right and his soul goes further deeply into a dark place of some really bad karma. The good kid already had good karma and possibly would of continued his good karma in another life or whatever. So much to think about, huh? | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | zoebird - 2005-09-29 1:34 PM
I can answer this only subjectively. I would almost undoubtedly save my own child's
life before mine, but some of my coworkers would certainly not be saved. Perhaps
I am just a normal human being in that regard, and perhaps the question that I have
posed is simply not meaningful; but if the question is meaningful, then I think it goes
to the root of all this discussion of killing or not killing. For, if we can kill to save ourselves,
then does it not follow that we can kill for other matters of our own love or convenience?
most of these things are subjective. just because it's subjective doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. All things have context, it's how we think about it in light of the context that seems to make the difference.
It is likely that if you had to choose between your life and the life of your child, you would choose your child because of your hopes for and love for that child. Similarly, if you had to step in to save a coworker, it is likely that you might just do that--that something heroic--because its' the right thing to do or you simply care about people in general, your coworker included.
I think that a person can kill for any number of reasons. The question is, then, whether or not they should and how that is determined. Generally speaking, self defense and defense of other are socially considered the most appropriate reasons for killing human beings or animals. Certainly, one would kill an attacking bear as one would kill an attacking woman or man.
.
I'm not so sure that contextualism is the right way to approach life and death. I do, of course,
understand the point you're making, but what I'm trying to understand is whether there's
anything absolute about proscriptions against killing.
Why, for example, am I justified in taking another life in order to save my own?
Whether I am eating the being in question, or killing them to have their liver to
replace mine, or killing them because they are a threat to me or somebody I
happen to like, whatever the situation, I am killing them for my own personal
benefit. How can this possibly be justified? Why not kill them because I want the
shoes they are wearing?
And if we adopt a contextual relativism, where it's okay to kill somebody if
we ascribe a "high enough" subjective standard to the act, then doesn't the
subjectivism (which is always malleable) allow us to kill anybody under any
pretext whenever we are so inclined?
Sorry, I don't mean this to hostile toward anybody in particular, but the question
annoys me to no end....
Brother Neel had some comments about karma and killing which I am still trying
to digest....essentially that motive engenders karma which will in the long run
determine the outcome of any particular killing. And in this sense, it is not the
killing itself that has any importance (all being reincarnated, as Krishna told
Arjuna), but the intention that carries the weight of the act...even saving a life
can produce [bad] karma if done for the wrong reasons.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | BG,
Everything you have asked and talked about sounds like a Buddhist way of thinking. This is the kinda stuff I learned while in the Tibetan Monstary. Seriously, have you thought about studying Buddhism or have you already?? You sound like a ripe candidate for a Rinpoche. BTW, I am being sincere and not sarcastic. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Hi Cyndi,
I've never been a Buddhist in a formal way, although some of the concepts
had a strong influence on me years ago, before I came to yoga. I do have
some difficulty in separating Buddhist and yogic concepts, particularly, it seems,
in this area.
BG | |
| | |
| Dear Brother BG:
Absolute prescription related to Killing and Non Killing? Gee, you are a tough guy.
- Total NON Killing is possible only in a Kaivalyam State.
- When an incarnation such as Krishna (full incarnation, not partial) is born, killing by that incarnation is for the salvation of the person dying. This happens only a few times. And, the person dying this way is the beneficiary. For example, Ravana gets liberated being killed by Shree Rama.
- When any person with previous leftover Karma is born, this person has to exhaust the previous Karma, and that may involve killing in minor (which occurs in most of us) or in major amounts.
- Previous Karma has to be exhausted. However, when an activity is being performed, the intention of the activity decides future Karma. Thus, intention is more important. If the Karma is done for the benefit of others, and not for selfish motive, then it does NOT create new karma to be exhasted later, thus avoiding any killing in the present or future lives.
- Thus, when one performs any activity, they shall have to
a) check how they feel. If they are driven to that activity, then they have past karma. For example, Shree Krisna told Arjuna, 'even if you avoid to fight in this war, the urge to fight will pursue you because that is your dharma meaning inborn tendency meaning kshatriya-varna meaning past karma'.
b) check the intention of fighting and avoid pure selfish motives out of it.
For example, a person is in a forest or wherever. He/she is very hungry. No vegetarian food is available. Only a small animal is available to kill and eat. Now, if this person is sattvic, he can not kill at all and shall prefer to die. If the person is incarnation, he/she will never kill for their own sake. If the person is born Kshatriya, then they will perform the killing for their own survival.
Without any offense, but only to state the fact, when the white people killed american indians, it was due to their rajasic tendency meaing past karma. They could not have kept peaceful and not killed them. It was their savage nature which forced them to kill. Therefore a Real Yogi forgive all, including savages. Thus, Mahatma Gandhi forgave British, not because they were right, but he understands their tendency, he does not want to create new karma, he wants to win their heart, so that future karmic fighting can be stopped. This is what has happened.
Brother Neel
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | kulkarnn - 2005-09-30 9:26 AM
Without any offense, but only to state the fact, when the white people killed american indians, it was due to their rajasic tendency meaing past karma. They could not have kept peaceful and not killed them. It was their savage nature which forced them to kill. Therefore a Real Yogi forgive all, including savages.
American History Lesson 101
Neelbhai, according to the scriptures , the white men were the ones running around calling the redskins aka Native American Indians "Savages" and said they needed to be civilized with towns and structured permanent buildings. To set the record straight, due to all the songs i.e. like in the Disney movie Pocahontas that goes something to the tune of...Savages, Savages, they are barely human (talking about Native Americans). Instead of being savages, could there be another name like perhaps, "Evil Monsters" that ravaged the land and the Indians. | |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2005-09-29 11:15 PM
I'm not so sure that contextualism is the right way to approach life and death. I do, of course,
understand the point you're making, but what I'm trying to understand is whether there's
anything absolute about proscriptions against killing.
so far, the only thing that i've figured out actually exists is subjective things. everything seems to be context, and life and death in and of themselves aren't that big a deal either way. the only thing that seems to matter in both is context.
Why, for example, am I justified in taking another life in order to save my own?
Whether I am eating the being in question, or killing them to have their liver to
replace mine, or killing them because they are a threat to me or somebody I
happen to like, whatever the situation, I am killing them for my own personal
benefit. How can this possibly be justified? Why not kill them because I want the
shoes they are wearing?
slippery slope fallacy again.
but, the idea of killing for this, killing for that, killing for this, and killing for that. How about killing because we drive cars which uses oil drilling which then affects ecosystems which then affects all sorts of plants, animals, and human communities?
truthfully, we all have impact, and there's no way to be 'zero impact' and we benefit and other things benefit and we destroy ourselves and other thigns are destroyed. And that's life and death and life.
And if we adopt a contextual relativism, where it's okay to kill somebody if
we ascribe a "high enough" subjective standard to the act, then doesn't the
subjectivism (which is always malleable) allow us to kill anybody under any
pretext whenever we are so inclined?
absolute relativism has it's problems. But, culturally we have understandings that guide our thinking. anti-speciesists argue that it's only a matter of time before animals are considered 'equals' to humans--morally speaking--and therefore we will not kill them for food or medical testing or invade their habitats, etc. Our current thinking only allows for humans to be given this much consideration, and later animals will be added. They point to the fact that in the past, certain classes of humans (women, children, people of color) were not considered 'human' or didn't have the same moral import or standing as white male humans, and how those ideas changed over time.
It's these subjective cultural ideas that we agree to (in the legal system, we call them 'legal fictions') that makes our 'absolute moral standard.' Or our objective standard, and from this, contextualism begins. This is why slippery slope doesn't function (killing someone (human) for shoes--but in fact, you likely do kill someone (animal) for shoes, if you wear leather! ;) ).
but, the interesting thing about the 'legal fiction' is the cultural recognition that it is subjective, and that because of this subject to change based on our cultural evolution--which includes a moral evolution.
Sorry, I don't mean this to hostile toward anybody in particular, but the question
annoys me to no end....
i do not feel that you are being hostile. do you feel that you are being hostile? that's certainly something itneresting to consider. I didn't read you as hostile. Maybe that's just me. Maybe it's because i've posed these questions many times to myself and to others and i have looked at the animal rights issues in multiple ways since becoming vegetarian--so i asked the same questions of myself.
And this lead me to make certain decisions about my behavoirs--in multiple facets of my life in regards to diet, activities, shoes, or wahtever else. but, i've also recognized that there is no way to be alive and not destroy something, harm somehting--that's part of being in body. But, i kinda think of it like shiva's dance. Sometimes, you have to destroy to create.
Brother Neel had some comments about karma and killing which I am still trying
to digest....essentially that motive engenders karma which will in the long run
determine the outcome of any particular killing. And in this sense, it is not the
killing itself that has any importance (all being reincarnated, as Krishna told
Arjuna), but the intention that carries the weight of the act...even saving a life
can produce [bad] karma if done for the wrong reasons.
right, which takes us back to context. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Well, Zoe, yes we can do this all via subjectivism, and legal fiction, etc, which is to
say that particular groups at particular times will decide in which context it's ok
to kill. Cultural context is the best that we've managed to come up with, and it
has variously allowed for slavery, the murder of indigenous peoples, and wars for oil.
And, yes, if I exist, I consume resources that other living things might need and
thereby indirectly deny some of them of life, showing that I must kill something
to exist. However, I most certainly do not need to engage in deliberate or predictable
killing of other human beings in order to exist.
When people killing people is conditionally acceptable, the conditions are always
going to be adjusted according to prejudice, greed, and convenience. I think that
that slippery slope is the essential question here, and it is the reason to ask what
the absolutes might be. In terms of our cultural/legal context, which I certainly
prefer to be secular and not governed by [religious] absolutes, the functional problem
is the slipperly slope...well-funded regressive interests regularly overpower the democratic
process, and a poorly educated populace easily accepts slogans masquerading as ideas
(to borrow a phrase from Isaiah Berlin). I think that context is a nice way run a society,
but I don't see that it is particularly informative about the, uh, ultimate acceptability of
killing.
[And as for hostility, no, I didn't think I was being hostile, but I've been accused
of hostility so often on these boards that I just felt like sticking in a disclaimer...]
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-09-30 10:56 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Dear Brother Neel,
Thank you for the long answers above. I will think about this for
a while before trying to answer. At the moment, my head is still
full of western legal fiction, and I need to move it back to the context
of yoga!
Bay Guy | |
| | |
| Well, Zoe, yes we can do this all via subjectivism, and legal fiction, etc, which is to
say that particular groups at particular times will decide in which context it's ok
to kill. Cultural context is the best that we've managed to come up with, and it
has variously allowed for slavery, the murder of indigenous peoples, and wars for oil.
and throughout all of these cultural contexts, there have also been those who dissent--who do not think something is right, etc.
i find that the only absolute comes out of the yoga sutras--but i left my copy in the car, so i'll have to write in in later--something about yoga is when one stands as one's true self, as observer to the world. Non attachment, i guess.
And, yes, if I exist, I consume resources that other living things might need and
thereby indirectly deny some of them of life, showing that I must kill something
to exist. However, I most certainly do not need to engage in deliberate or predictable
killing of other human beings in order to exist.
doesn't this answer your original question though? to me, the whole thing hinges on the concept of necessity. I strive to only kill when necessary. I recognize that it is necessary for me to drive a car at this time (i hope in the future to live in a place where i will not have to drive a car)--and in doing so i'm involved in wars that kill people, in things that kill ecosystems, and pollution that causes harm to many far beyond the immediate time and space where i drive. But, i see it as a necessity because i need to work, and i need to work to have food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and internet access (ok, that last one may not be a need!).
Also, since it started at animals in the question somewhere--when does one need to deliberately and predictably need to kill animals? i mean, it's a honest question for oneself, isn't it?
slippery slope stuff
here, i'm using quotes to make space between ideas. i like the form of it.
anyway, the slippery slope can be an issue--particularly with that slogans/ideas thing. As an example, a friend of mine is really into (american) football. Now, he watches these over-wrought NFL films thingies, and was watching them while his wife and i were beading on friday nite. There was this weird thing that the film kept going on about "respect." over and over they kept saying (and quoting different teams, coaches, and individual players) that "it's about respect." and finally i said "what the F does that mean? i mean really. It's freakin football! what does it have to do with respect? and what do they mean by respect? what are they trying to say? what is the idea?" it's totally that slogan as ideas thing, because my friend was like 'well, other teams disrespect the eagles because. . .' and i'm like "what? disrespect a football team? i mean really!"
anyway, to say the least, i cleaned up beads pretty quickly and got out of there (he can get aggressive aobut football). but, what was up with that?
truthfully, ignorant people make ignorant choices. the issue isn't really a question of contexts and who uses and abuses them. on a grand scale, certainly, we hae to be mindful of that. But intimately--in one's personal practice of yoga, it's really about what you do and what you think, so *your* context. your bodily context is different from my bodily context. you have a bum knee and my hearing is weird on the left side (or whatever). where i live is different than where you live. my education is differnt from yours.
so, step one of context in this instance (predictable and deliberate killing) is really about *your* context. then, it's about talking to others about *their* context--if they can even see things this way, as most people can't see things 'meta-culturally.' | |
| | |
| *accidental double post*
Edited by zoebird 2005-10-03 12:04 PM
| |
| | |
| I live in a very masculine, hetero town (on the surface) where "respect" means everything to these football-watching worms. That kind of "respect" is butt-kissing ego gratification. I read in Ms. Magazine a decade ago that the #1 fear for women is to be killed. The #1 fear in men is to be made fun of/to be laughed at. Again, more ego-protection from the male species. No offense, yoga.com guys. I'm referring to all men EXCEPT the men who read/post to this website.
The idea that you "respect" someone because he might hurt or kill you is truly barbarian.
Karma really is a bytch
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | *Fifi* - 2005-10-03 3:57 PM
I live in a very masculine, hetero town (on the surface) where "respect" means everything to these football-watching worms. That kind of "respect" is butt-kissing ego gratification. I read in Ms. Magazine a decade ago that the #1 fear for women is to be killed. The #1 fear in men is to be made fun of/to be laughed at. Again, more ego-protection from the male species. No offense, yoga.com guys. I'm referring to all men EXCEPT the men who read/post to this website.
The idea that you "respect" someone because he might hurt or kill you is truly barbarian.
Karma really is a bytch
I remember years ago being told off by some old fart in a meeting, when I suggested
that a senior person should pay the same parking fee [at work] that the rest of us
paid. He glared at me and bellowed "It's about RESPECT!" | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | zoebird - 2005-10-03 12:02 PM
And, yes, if I exist, I consume resources that other living things might need and
thereby indirectly deny some of them of life, showing that I must kill something
to exist. However, I most certainly do not need to engage in deliberate or predictable
killing of other human beings in order to exist.
doesn't this answer your original question though? to me, the whole thing hinges on the concept of necessity. I strive to only kill when necessary. I recognize that it is necessary for me to drive a car at this time (i hope in the future to live in a place where i will not have to drive a car )--and in doing so i'm involved in wars that kill people, in things that kill ecosystems, and pollution that causes harm to many far beyond the immediate time and space where i drive. But, i see it as a necessity because i need to work, and i need to work to have food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and internet access (ok, that last one may not be a need! ).
Zoe, this is a vegetarian perspective. I'm talking about people actively killing people.
truthfully, ignorant people make ignorant choices. the issue isn't really a question of contexts and who uses and abuses them. on a grand scale, certainly, we hae to be mindful of that. But intimately--in one's personal practice of yoga, it's really about what you do and what you think, so *your* context. your bodily context is different from my bodily context. you have a bum knee and my hearing is weird on the left side (or whatever). where i live is different than where you live. my education is differnt from yours.
so, step one of context in this instance (predictable and deliberate killing) is really about *your* context. then, it's about talking to others about *their* context--if they can even see things this way, as most people can't see things 'meta-culturally.'
Hmm... yes, there's a context of educated/ignorant in this. In Latin "noblesse oblige"...
those of us able to think sbout the "larger" questions have an obligation to do so for the
sake of everyone who can't. [God that sounds arrogant! But we should all try, no?]
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | [What's with these double posts?....slow server?]
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-10-03 10:48 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-09-30 9:26 AM
Dear Brother BG:
Absolute prescription related to Killing and Non Killing? Gee, you are a tough guy.
- Total NON Killing is possible only in a Kaivalyam State.
- When an incarnation such as Krishna (full incarnation, not partial) is born, killing by that incarnation is for the salvation of the person dying. This happens only a few times. And, the person dying this way is the beneficiary. For example, Ravana gets liberated being killed by Shree Rama.
- When any person with previous leftover Karma is born, this person has to exhaust the previous Karma, and that may involve killing in minor (which occurs in most of us) or in major amounts.
- Previous Karma has to be exhausted. However, when an activity is being performed, the intention of the activity decides future Karma. Thus, intention is more important. If the Karma is done for the benefit of others, and not for selfish motive, then it does NOT create new karma to be exhasted later, thus avoiding any killing in the present or future lives.
- Thus, when one performs any activity, they shall have to
a) check how they feel. If they are driven to that activity, then they have past karma. For example, Shree Krisna told Arjuna, 'even if you avoid to fight in this war, the urge to fight will pursue you because that is your dharma meaning inborn tendency meaning kshatriya-varna meaning past karma'.
b) check the intention of fighting and avoid pure selfish motives out of it.
For example, a person is in a forest or wherever. He/she is very hungry. No vegetarian food is available. Only a small animal is available to kill and eat. Now, if this person is sattvic, he can not kill at all and shall prefer to die. If the person is incarnation, he/she will never kill for their own sake. If the person is born Kshatriya, then they will perform the killing for their own survival.
Without any offense, but only to state the fact, when the white people killed american indians, it was due to their rajasic tendency meaing past karma. They could not have kept peaceful and not killed them. It was their savage nature which forced them to kill. Therefore a Real Yogi forgive all, including savages. Thus, Mahatma Gandhi forgave British, not because they were right, but he understands their tendency, he does not want to create new karma, he wants to win their heart, so that future karmic fighting can be stopped. This is what has happened.
Brother Neel
www.authenticyoga.org
Dear Brother Neel,
I've thought a bit more about your post, and the following seemed to come out of it.
There is implied in this an absolute standard that killing is not acceptable among the
enlighted (or purusha vishesha?). Killing occurs as a natural result of karma
amongst those who still have karma to work out; but once karma is resolved, there is
no killing. Have I got this right?
If so, it seems to suggest that the standard we should aspire to is never to kill?
I:24. Klesha karma vipakashayaira aparamrishtah purushavishesha Ishawaraha.
--- Bay Guy
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-10-03 10:48 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Bay Guy - 2005-10-03 10:37 PM
In French! "noblesse oblige"...
Why does this silly system limit us to corrections for just 30 minutes? ARGH!
| |
| | |
| Darling Bay Guy:
I do not know why your brought Purusha Vishesha in all this. Yes, your understanding is kind of correct, leave aside Purush vishesha. However, when one says karma it means the accummulated karma, not the one which one might create if the action is done with a motive. So, when actions are done without a motive, and all past karma is exhausted, then NO killing is possible. It is possible even then if an incarnation performs it in a certain context, such as Krishna's killing Shishupal, or Kamsa. There are two things: a) these killings are not done with a motive which is with attachment. b) these killings offer moksha to the one being killed.
I do not know why you brought PurushVishesha here. The Maharshi Patanjali is mentioning Purushavishesha Ishwara here in the context of Ishwarapranidhan to state the method of devotional surrender to Ishwara as one method to obtain the Samadhi. The method is further clarified as tat japas tadarthabhavanam -- repetition of OM with focus on Ishwara.
And, lastly Patanjali Yoga is a Spiritual Science which is to be taken as a Personal Practice. It is not a socio political statement such as dharma shastra.
Brother Neel
www.authenticyoga.org. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
What brought me to Purusha Vishesha was simply the statement that
Ishwara is free of karma, which Patanjali states in that sutra, and the
sense that when we free ourselves of karma we become Purusha Vishesha.
Perhaps I have this wrong?
| |
| | |
| Yes Dear Brother BG:
Just by exhausting karma, we do not immediately become Purrusha Vishesha. There is more to that and this is described in the 4th chapter of Sutras. Anyway, after obtaining complete kaivalyam, we do actually become Purushavishesha, but then WE (as before gettting the Kaivalyam) are NOT there anymore. So, the word We does not exist at that time.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
| Zoe, this is a vegetarian perspective. I'm talking about people actively killing people.
ok, now you've lost me. as in first person killing and for what reasons (deliberate and predictable)? can yu unpack your ideas? | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-10-04 9:52 AM
Yes Dear Brother BG:
Just by exhausting karma, we do not immediately become Purrusha Vishesha. There is more to that and this is described in the 4th chapter of Sutras. Anyway, after obtaining complete kaivalyam, we do actually become Purushavishesha, but then WE (as before gettting the Kaivalyam) are NOT there anymore. So, the word We does not exist at that time.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org
Okay, so let's think about kaivalyam only. If we reach that state, which is free of karma,
as you've said, we have total non-killing. Doesn't that suggest that if we are aspiring toward
kaivalyam, one of the attributes that we should emulate is total non-killing, just as we
adopt other practices to reach kaivalyam?
BG | |
| | |
| Dear Brother BG:
Good question, I am proud of you. Yes, your statement is true. But, the missing part is this:
We practice NON-Killing to create NO Karma, so that no new Karma is created, so as to reach towards NO Karma state, and then to Kaivalyam.
But, that is in the sense of Intention behind the Activity. One still has to exhaust the previous karma, which may involve Killing. And, that is the duty of Kshatriya to fight as the karma has already been created.
The problem is that one must do that acitivity without creating new karma, that is only as a duty, as suggested by Shree Krishna to Arjuna.
In Buddhism, NON killing is of utmost important, but eating meat is allowed. Gautam Buddha himself ate meat, as I learn so.
Brother Neel
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| |
|
Can Christians Practice Yoga?