|
|
| Hi Friends,
What is God? - Yogic Perspective
=======================
Any practitioner of Yoga should know the Yogic perspective of God. The God is referred by many names such as Bramhan, Atman, Shiva and so on. Though the names are many the underlying principal remains the same. In Lesson 1 it was mentioned that the final aim of Yoga is self-realization and self-realization is same as God realization. Now we will elaborate on this fact further so as to have clear understanding of Yogic point of view on the subject.
http://www.yogavision.in/articles/displayarticle.aspx?id=395
|
|
| |
|
| I wonder what Aurobindo's take would be on your article of God. The article is very well written and thought out. Though I can't help but get the sense it leans slightly toward dogma. When we hold a position of "should" we tend to enter dangerous territory, from a yogic perspective.
Is yoga not possible for the agnostic and the atheist?
|
|
| |
|
| purnayoga - 2006-10-06 1:59 AM
I wonder what Aurobindo's take would be on your article of God. The article is very well written and thought out. Though I can't help but get the sense it leans slightly toward dogma. When we hold a position of "should" we tend to enter dangerous territory, from a yogic perspective.
Is yoga not possible for the agnostic and the atheist?
Hi purnayoga,
First of all let me mention that the series "Lessons on Yoga" is based on Patanjali's Yoga sutras and aims at self-realization. If I understand you correctly then you are trying to say that "Yoga can be practiced by someone who doesn't believe in God". Am I correct?
Each religion on this earth has a set of beliefs. Irrespective of differences they all point to the same fact that there is "something" that is supreme, absolute and powerful from which this world manifests. Now this supreme power is called as God, Bramhan, Atman or something else. What we call Him doesn't matter but His existance is accepted by all religions and spiritual paths.
If one is practicing Yoga for health or some limited benifits then probably he need not believe in this supreme being but when Yoga is practiced for self realization then one needs a firm belief in this absolute consciousness. A Yogi aims at merging in this consciousness. So how can he not accept its existance? If someone finds the symbol of Om pertaining to a specific religion (in my openion it is not) then he may choose some thing else that represents this supreme being. The aim of having some symbol is to have easy focus, visualization and meditation on the underlying principal and not to provide a rigid rule.
Edited by bipinjoshi 2006-10-06 4:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
|   |
|
| |
|
| bipinjoshi - 2006-10-06 4:34 AM
purnayoga - 2006-10-06 1:59 AM
I wonder what Aurobindo's take would be on your article of God. The article is very well written and thought out. Though I can't help but get the sense it leans slightly toward dogma. When we hold a position of "should" we tend to enter dangerous territory, from a yogic perspective.
Is yoga not possible for the agnostic and the atheist?
Hi purnayoga,
First of all let me mention that the series "Lessons on Yoga" is based on Patanjali's Yoga sutras and aims at self-realization. If I understand you correctly then you are trying to say that "Yoga can be practiced by someone who doesn't believe in God". Am I correct?
Each religion on this earth has a set of beliefs. Irrespective of differences they all point to the same fact that there is "something" that is supreme, absolute and powerful from which this world manifests. Now this supreme power is called as God, Bramhan, Atman or something else. What we call Him doesn't matter but His existance is accepted by all religions and spiritual paths.
If one is practicing Yoga for health or some limited benifits then probably he need not believe in this supreme being but when Yoga is practiced for self realization then one needs a firm belief in this absolute consciousness. A Yogi aims at merging in this consciousness. So how can he not accept its existance? If someone finds the symbol of Om pertaining to a specific religion (in my openion it is not ) then he may choose some thing else that represents this supreme being. The aim of having some symbol is to have easy focus, visualization and meditation on the underlying principal and not to provide a rigid rule.
Bipinji:
Namaste. Again a fantastic article from you. I am sure that I shall request your review of my future writing. Very clear and easy reading is your writing. On this article, things to consider:
- In Patanjali, he does not force one to believe in GOD. He says ishwarapranidhanad va... va means 'Or'. thus, 'Or by devotion with surrender to Ishwara'.
- For those who do not wish to take this mode, he states... tatpratishedharthamekatattvaabhyaasah... By focus on one single principle.
- And, again.. yathaabhimatadhyaanaadvaa... By meditation on anything considered appropriate by the yoga student, that single principle focus is achieved.
- Lastly, OM is NOT a symbol like other symbols, OM is actually an experience which all Yogis culminate into during the process of Self Realization, whether they are followers of x, y, z, etc.
- Of course, I personally feel that as one gets to the higher stages of Yoga Practice, belief in Ishwara becomes stronger because 'it is very difficult to get rid of ego, otherwise' and unless ego is irradicated, self realization is away.
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
 
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Neelbhai wrote - 2006-10-06 10:04 AM
- Of course, I personally feel that as one gets to the higher stages of Yoga Practice, belief in Ishwara becomes stronger because 'it is very difficult to get rid of ego, otherwise' and unless ego is irradicated, self realization is away.
Is that "self-realization is "away" or "a way"???
If it is "away", do you really mean self-realization is impossible until ego is irradicated?
If it is "a way", do you mean self-realization is "a way" to irradicate the ego?? |
|
| |
|
| Cyndi - 2006-10-06 11:19 AM
Neelbhai wrote - 2006-10-06 10:04 AM
- Of course, I personally feel that as one gets to the higher stages of Yoga Practice, belief in Ishwara becomes stronger because 'it is very difficult to get rid of ego, otherwise' and unless ego is irradicated, self realization is away.
Is that "self-realization is "away" or "a way"???
If it is "away", do you really mean self-realization is impossible until ego is irradicated?
If it is "a way", do you mean self-realization is "a way" to irradicate the ego??
Dear Cyndiben:
Self Realization is impossible without Ego irradication. So it is 'away' and not 'a way' in the above.
|
|
| |
|
| kulkarnn - 2006-10-06 11:37 AM
Cyndi - 2006-10-06 11:19 AM
Neelbhai wrote - 2006-10-06 10:04 AM
- Of course, I personally feel that as one gets to the higher stages of Yoga Practice, belief in Ishwara becomes stronger because 'it is very difficult to get rid of ego, otherwise' and unless ego is irradicated, self realization is away.
Is that "self-realization is "away" or "a way"???
If it is "away", do you really mean self-realization is impossible until ego is irradicated?
If it is "a way", do you mean self-realization is "a way" to irradicate the ego??
Dear Cyndiben:
Self Realization is impossible without Ego irradication. So it is 'away' and not 'a way' in the above.
It is this very issue that of 'Ego irradication' that I've spent much time considering.
Thanks for your decisive description, sir.
And Happy 50th, yet again. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | NB,
I was just checking and thought that was what you meant.
To take this even deeper, I actually was expecting you to say both. Here's why:
In today's world most people on a spiritual path have momentary glimpses of self-realization, especially in the beginning or as self-realization arises. At least this has been my experience over the years. So, my thinking was that in these moments, while sometimes they are momentarily, temporary or whatever, it can be beneficial in irradicating the ego. I know that it is usually taught the other way around...however, if one becomes self-realized, even for a glimpse or a moment, miracles can and do happen, and when realizing the self, the ego has a way of simply dropping away to the side so to speak. The moment, even as short or long as it is, can alter the ego. It lets the ego choose and actually the ego has no choice during that important moment. As long as we are on this earth and have karma, this is the experience, as brief as it can be. Then as practice wears on, this occurence happens so frequently that it becomes a natural, joyful, blissful experience...you end up longing for it, you don't want anything else...because you know and you understand.
On the other hand, a fully self-realized or "enlightened" being, does not have these glimpses of self-realization...they are simply enlightened and there are no more glimpses, no more temporary and wavering moments. There are no concepts of time and space at this point. Actually, words cannot describe this, although I'm sure you can come up with a sanskrit definition of that. These individuals are easily recognized and sometimes they are not. Interesting......now I'm off to go sit on top of a mountain and reflect upon this...or at least go catch a glimpse of myself,
Edited by Cyndi 2006-10-06 1:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I'm going to respectfully disagree. And a yoga philosophy based solely on the sutras, without proper consideration for the vedas, upanishads, the pradipika, and the gita, to me seem a bit short of the mark.
While Neel is correct about your writing and I enjoy it very much. And I beleive it to be very important material I think what is here is A yogic perspective and perhaps not THE yogic perspective.
Bipin, Is it your belief that yoga (as per the Sutras of course) is religion? Is it your belief that spirtual disciplines are identical to religions?
And Neel, I wonder if it's not a bit misleading to refer to Patanjali as "he" since there is some debate as to whether the Yoga Sutras were written by one person.
bipinjoshi - 2006-10-05 1:34 AM
purnayoga - 2006-10-06 1:59 AM
I wonder what Aurobindo's take would be on your article of God. The article is very well written and thought out. Though I can't help but get the sense it leans slightly toward dogma. When we hold a position of "should" we tend to enter dangerous territory, from a yogic perspective.
Is yoga not possible for the agnostic and the atheist?
Hi purnayoga,
First of all let me mention that the series "Lessons on Yoga" is based on Patanjali's Yoga sutras and aims at self-realization. If I understand you correctly then you are trying to say that "Yoga can be practiced by someone who doesn't believe in God". Am I correct?
Each religion on this earth has a set of beliefs. Irrespective of differences they all point to the same fact that there is "something" that is supreme, absolute and powerful from which this world manifests. Now this supreme power is called as God, Bramhan, Atman or something else. What we call Him doesn't matter but His existance is accepted by all religions and spiritual paths.
If one is practicing Yoga for health or some limited benifits then probably he need not believe in this supreme being but when Yoga is practiced for self realization then one needs a firm belief in this absolute consciousness. A Yogi aims at merging in this consciousness. So how can he not accept its existance? If someone finds the symbol of Om pertaining to a specific religion (in my openion it is not ) then he may choose some thing else that represents this supreme being. The aim of having some symbol is to have easy focus, visualization and meditation on the underlying principal and not to provide a rigid rule.
Edited by purnayoga 2006-10-06 1:32 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Dear Cyndiben: What you wrote is very interesting and factual. The only contentious issue is whether to call those preliminary experiences as Self Realization. In Yoga, that is called a preliminary Samadhi which is the 8th limb of Yoga Practice.
tadevaarthamartha nirbhaasam svaroopashoonyamiva samaadhiH. svaroopashoonya is what you are describing as irradication of ego.
Dear SCT: Thanks. Re. to ego: many persons consider ego and egotism as one. Ego is a pure ego which considers a person's existence to be separate from the universal existence creating a separation, that is ego. Egotism is when the person wants things only for himself, and in his way. In Sanskrit, pure Ego is called asmitaa. And, egotism is Ahamkaara. |
|
| |
|
| purnayoga - 2006-10-06 1:25 PM
I'm going to respectfully disagree. And a yoga philosophy based solely on the sutras, without proper consideration for the vedas, upanishads, the pradipika, and the gita, to me seem a bit short of the mark.
While Neel is correct about your writing and I enjoy it very much. And I beleive it to be very important material I think what is here is A yogic perspective and perhaps not THE yogic perspective.
Bipin, Is it your belief that yoga (as per the Sutras of course ) is religion? Is it your belief that spirtual disciplines are identical to religions?
And Neel, I wonder if it's not a bit misleading to refer to Patanjali as "he" since there is some debate as to whether the Yoga Sutras were written by one person.
bipinjoshi - 2006-10-05 1:34 AM
purnayoga - 2006-10-06 1:59 AM
I wonder what Aurobindo's take would be on your article of God. The article is very well written and thought out. Though I can't help but get the sense it leans slightly toward dogma. When we hold a position of "should" we tend to enter dangerous territory, from a yogic perspective.
Is yoga not possible for the agnostic and the atheist?
Hi purnayoga,
First of all let me mention that the series "Lessons on Yoga" is based on Patanjali's Yoga sutras and aims at self-realization. If I understand you correctly then you are trying to say that "Yoga can be practiced by someone who doesn't believe in God". Am I correct?
Each religion on this earth has a set of beliefs. Irrespective of differences they all point to the same fact that there is "something" that is supreme, absolute and powerful from which this world manifests. Now this supreme power is called as God, Bramhan, Atman or something else. What we call Him doesn't matter but His existance is accepted by all religions and spiritual paths.
If one is practicing Yoga for health or some limited benifits then probably he need not believe in this supreme being but when Yoga is practiced for self realization then one needs a firm belief in this absolute consciousness. A Yogi aims at merging in this consciousness. So how can he not accept its existance? If someone finds the symbol of Om pertaining to a specific religion (in my openion it is not ) then he may choose some thing else that represents this supreme being. The aim of having some symbol is to have easy focus, visualization and meditation on the underlying principal and not to provide a rigid rule.
Dear Purnayogi:
a) Well the problem with Bipiniji's statement can be solved by his modifying the title as:
God (or whatever): Yoga Sutras of Patanjali Perspective
Now, for your information, Yoga Sutras are Panjali are extraction of Vedas, Upanishads, and Puranas. Pradipika came more than 1000 years after Patanjali, so he could not have extracted it.
b) As for refering to Patanjali as 'He'. I am helpless because all I know about him in terms of History state him as 'He'. But, I would be more than happy if you wish to call Patanjali, 'He' or 'It' or 'They'.
From what I know from studies and from my Sanskrit background in Philosophy and Language, I can assure you that Yoga Sutras are written by one single person. For logical reason, some believe that the fourth chapter is added later. But, that belief is not due to language, but for other reasons.
Lastly, when I refered to Patanjali, before your query, I never thought of his sex.
Peace |
|
| |
|
| kulkarnn - 2006-10-06 1:59 PM
Dear Cyndiben: What you wrote is very interesting and factual. The only contentious issue is whether to call those preliminary experiences as Self Realization. In Yoga, that is called a preliminary Samadhi which is the 8th limb of Yoga Practice.
tadevaarthamartha nirbhaasam svaroopashoonyamiva samaadhiH. svaroopashoonya is what you are describing as irradication of ego.
Dear SCT: Thanks. Re. to ego: many persons consider ego and egotism as one. Ego is a pure ego which considers a person's existence to be separate from the universal existence creating a separation, that is ego. Egotism is when the person wants things only for himself, and in his way. In Sanskrit, pure Ego is called asmitaa. And, egotism is Ahamkaara.
isn't asmitaa or I-ness also the 'word' for female?
I thought I read this somewhere.....?? |
|
| |
|
| SCThornley - 2006-10-06 2:24 PM
kulkarnn - 2006-10-06 1:59 PM
Dear Cyndiben: What you wrote is very interesting and factual. The only contentious issue is whether to call those preliminary experiences as Self Realization. In Yoga, that is called a preliminary Samadhi which is the 8th limb of Yoga Practice.
tadevaarthamartha nirbhaasam svaroopashoonyamiva samaadhiH. svaroopashoonya is what you are describing as irradication of ego.
Dear SCT: Thanks. Re. to ego: many persons consider ego and egotism as one. Ego is a pure ego which considers a person's existence to be separate from the universal existence creating a separation, that is ego. Egotism is when the person wants things only for himself, and in his way. In Sanskrit, pure Ego is called asmitaa. And, egotism is Ahamkaara.
isn't asmitaa or I-ness also the 'word' for female?
I thought I read this somewhere.....??
Dear SCT: Smita (pronounced as smitaa ) is a name of a girl, it means the one with a smile. smita means smile and smitaa is a girl with a smile. asmitaa comes from - asmi meaning I am and taa means feeling or - ness. But, of course asmitaa is a feminine word. |
|
| |
|
| purnayoga - 2006-10-06 12:25 PM
I'm going to respectfully disagree. And a yoga philosophy based solely on the sutras, without proper consideration for the vedas, upanishads, the pradipika, and the gita, to me seem a bit short of the mark.
While Neel is correct about your writing and I enjoy it very much. And I beleive it to be very important material I think what is here is A yogic perspective and perhaps not THE yogic perspective.
Bipin, Is it your belief that yoga (as per the Sutras of course ) is religion? Is it your belief that spirtual disciplines are identical to religions?
And Neel, I wonder if it's not a bit misleading to refer to Patanjali as "he" since there is some debate as to whether the Yoga Sutras were written by one person.
bipinjoshi - 2006-10-05 1:34 AM
purnayoga - 2006-10-06 1:59 AM
I wonder what Aurobindo's take would be on your article of God. The article is very well written and thought out. Though I can't help but get the sense it leans slightly toward dogma. When we hold a position of "should" we tend to enter dangerous territory, from a yogic perspective.
Is yoga not possible for the agnostic and the atheist?
Hi purnayoga,
First of all let me mention that the series "Lessons on Yoga" is based on Patanjali's Yoga sutras and aims at self-realization. If I understand you correctly then you are trying to say that "Yoga can be practiced by someone who doesn't believe in God". Am I correct?
Each religion on this earth has a set of beliefs. Irrespective of differences they all point to the same fact that there is "something" that is supreme, absolute and powerful from which this world manifests. Now this supreme power is called as God, Bramhan, Atman or something else. What we call Him doesn't matter but His existance is accepted by all religions and spiritual paths.
If one is practicing Yoga for health or some limited benifits then probably he need not believe in this supreme being but when Yoga is practiced for self realization then one needs a firm belief in this absolute consciousness. A Yogi aims at merging in this consciousness. So how can he not accept its existance? If someone finds the symbol of Om pertaining to a specific religion (in my openion it is not ) then he may choose some thing else that represents this supreme being. The aim of having some symbol is to have easy focus, visualization and meditation on the underlying principal and not to provide a rigid rule.
1. I have studied Upanishads, Gita and all the major Yogic texts including HYP, Gherand Samhita, Shiva Samhita, Yoga Chudamani Upanishad and many others. All these texts do not contradict Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. These specific lessons are "mainly" based on the Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. As you will see in later lessons some Hatha Yoga techniques will also be discussed there.
2. I respect your freedom of not believing on something. No one but you can decide if you wish to believe on something or not.
3. I do not consider Yoga as a religious matter. In my openion Yoga, Supreme conciousness (God) and spiritual upliftment are not monopolies of religions. The only reason I mentioned about religions in my previous post is that religious texts is something that anyone can check to varify what I said.
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Thanks NB. One question, isn't or can self-realization be a gradual process though?? I understand the nature of preliminary Samadhi, however, I still feel the two are very similar...meaning that self-realization is also similar in nature. |
|
| |
|
| Cyndi - 2006-10-07 10:55 AM
Thanks NB. One question, isn't or can self-realization be a gradual process though?? I understand the nature of preliminary Samadhi, however, I still feel the two are very similar...meaning that self-realization is also similar in nature.
Dear Cyndiben: It can only be considered that way, but actually Self Realization itself is not gradual.
yogashchittavruttinirodhah. tadaa drashtuswaruupevashthaanam.
When all the vruttis are stopped, then the self resides in its form. Otherwise, it tries to take the form of the vrutti. Even when there is one vrutti, it takes its form. Thus, no self realization occurs even when one vrutti exists. However, as vruttis are gradually removed, one may consider the Self Realization is approaching gradually. But, when it comes, it is instantaneous.
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
 
Location: A Blue State | One problem in trying to decide what "yoga" says about "god" is the problem of defining "god" -- dual or nondual? Suppose that I am as I was before yoga, an atheist, and that my spirituality is accordingly humanist in its focus. I think of the well being of myself and of others, and "self-realization" pursues this general goal of human unity, coexistence, and internal peace. I come to see that others are as I am, and that what is good in and for me is likewise good in and for them. It is not long before one begins to see one's self in the eyes of others... the nondual perspective has thus established its root with no reference to a deity. God is found in one's self and all others. So -- Is this now religion? Some other threads in this forum have explored the question of whether the yogic perspective is dual or nondual, and also the difference between deities, self, and god. There's no completely obvious answer to those questions, even from an historical viewpoint (in so far as these divisions and questions have existed for millennia). I think that it comes down to personal belief, or personal acceptance of the interpretation of some particular school of thought. In my post-atheist realization, I find that god is impersonal and pervasive, and that deities are manifestations of god that help me to focus on particular aspects of god, and that god is to be found both within and without. Beyond this, I know nothing at all about god. ... bg |
|
| |
|
| Bay Guy - 2006-10-25 9:57 PM
One problem in trying to decide what "yoga" says about "god" is the problem of defining "god" -- dual or nondual? Suppose that I am as I was before yoga, an atheist, and that my spirituality is accordingly humanist in its focus. I think of the well being of myself and of others, and "self-realization" pursues this general goal of human unity, coexistence, and internal peace. I come to see that others are as I am, and that what is good in and for me is likewise good in and for them. It is not long before one begins to see one's self in the eyes of others... the nondual perspective has thus established its root with no reference to a deity. God is found in one's self and all others. So -- Is this now religion? Some other threads in this forum have explored the question of whether the yogic perspective is dual or nondual, and also the difference between deities, self, and god. There's no completely obvious answer to those questions, even from an historical viewpoint (in so far as these divisions and questions have existed for millennia). I think that it comes down to personal belief, or personal acceptance of the interpretation of some particular school of thought. In my post-atheist realization, I find that god is impersonal and pervasive, and that deities are manifestations of god that help me to focus on particular aspects of god, and that god is to be found both within and without. Beyond this, I know nothing at all about god. ... bg
Dear BG: Long time no see. The yoga practice is always a Dual philosophy. As long as one is practicing, one takes an ideal whether God or any other symbol, and practices until one is going somewhere. When one reaches there, a practice is not necessary and Nonduality is realized. Thus, the practitioner always remains in duality until the Nonduality dawns as a result. There are some who try to practice non duality and ultimately find that they are actually dual. Also, at times, a totally realized saint retains duality to make 'lokasangraha' (Bhagawadgita) that is to guide others.
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Dear Brother Neel, Yes, I do agree with your point, in so far as a symbol or a deity provides a path to follow toward one's goal. You comment does admit nonduality immediately, since that is the ultimate goal. One is separated or dual until one is realized or nondual. In other spiritual or religious systems, there is never any hope of nonduality (Christianity, for example, is this way). So yoga is different in that nonduality is both possible and desired. If a system of thought allows a nondual state as its goal, then one's actions while still in the dual state are informed and perhaps guided by the awareness that the final reality is nondual. In this sense, I would call a system of thought that allows nonduality (even if only after a long time) a nondual system of belief. So that is what I would call yoga. Of course, others may use different wording. I hope you've been well. .... bg |
|
| |
|
| It's whatever you want it to be.
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | I was going to say its wherever you are at...another words...if you are practicing being dual, probably best not to focus on the non-dual...might be rather conflicting. I think this runs along the lines of honoring where you are at and is part of the terrain. There is no right or wrong in both the schools of thought. I think we sometimes get really judgemental and that is where the real error lies. Being brought up in the Baptist faith didn't help with the judgementalness, until I broke away from my parents and sought out my truth. Its been very interesting to say the least. I can now mingle with my parents on a much different level and relating to them is not that hard. I think its harder for them to try to understand me, which is where I have to muster up a ton of courage and compassion for them and just accept them for what they believe. The neat thing is that I don't have to blast them away, its very subtle on my part. I like it now, but in the beginning it was so hard and is an art believe me. So far, so good. Although, I do have my challenging moments.
Edited by Cyndi 2006-10-26 9:32 AM
|
|
| |
What is God? - Yogic Perspecti
