|
|
| I am an Atheist and Secular Humanist. Last week friend of mine who is also secular got into a discussion with me about Yoga. She attempted Yoga classes for awhile but the spiritual aspects made her uncomfortable. Although she enjoyed the asana and breath work she ultimately decided to stop her practice. She had trouble understanding how I didn't find Yoga to be in conflict with my own beliefs.
Ever since our conversation I've been thinking a lot about this. I'd like to discuss it with other Secular Yogis, but I've never met anyone else who is. Obviously Yoga isn't a religion, but it does seem to assume that everyone believes in some form of deity of divinity. At least that's what I'm discovering as I explore deeper into Yoga and related philosophies.
I suppose I don't even know what I'm asking. As I said I don't feel a personal conflict but the subject is of interest to me. Has anyone else had any experience with this? Any book or article suggestions? Thanks. | |
| | |
| I've never been sure whether I beleive in God or not. I believe there is true good and true evil present in the world, it's just when these concepts are personified I start to get the twitches  I guess the nearest I ever get to believing in a God is when I'm totally at peace in a garden.
For me, I'm actually attracted to the spiritual aspects of yoga as I feel there's been something missing in my life for some time. I feel that all religions share a certain common set of rules that may be summarised as 'do no harm'. Yoga shares this root and it's one I think all can adopt in thier life regardless of whether they have faith or not.
Fee
Edited by Orbilia 2005-04-04 4:32 AM
| |
| | |
| Dear CCG:
I love and respect your honesty when you say: I suppose I don't even know what I'm asking. As I said I don't feel a personal conflict but the subject is of interest to me. Has anyone else had any experience with this? Any book or article suggestions? Thanks.
Now, the next step will be: First trying to formulate/know/etc. your question/doubt/feeling. Then, only an answer/solution/etc. to that should be sought. In formulating the question, you play the maximum role, and therefore you have to give the maximum input and also, ultimately you are the one who has to make the Final staatement of question/doubt/feeling. Others can only assist you in this first step. I can volunteer to assist in this first step.
To start with: What do you mean by you are Atheist? What is meant by your friend NOT feeling comfortable? When you practice Yoga: What is your meaning of Yoga and What is your goal in doing Yoga?
Regards
neel kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
| What's a secular humanist ?
BTW I was chatting to a guy on the plane once and I said I don't believe in 'isms', and he said, what about optimism ? realism ? Well I had to agree. I thought that was rather clever. Just thought I'd share it. | |
| | |
| Roxanne, your yoga and humanist nature has you thinking. As life adds experiences, you interact with others, face life's ups & downs, and question as you journey, you may very well alter your beliefs. You've probably heard the axiom, "There are no atheists in a foxhole." Don't think one can really appreciate the truth there until you've been in lie's foxholes where the individual is powerless to improve the situation and out of desparation, appeals to a higher power. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
    
| Roxanne - in my mind, a comitted atheist would have little problem dealing with the spiritual aspect of yoga. They would just reject and/or ignore it. OTOH, someone who was not firm in their (dis)beliefs would feel challenged when confronted with the possibility that they might have to examine their own spirituality or lack thereof. I can see a problem if the classes were heavily into meditation and talked about spiritual aspects throughout the class. To an atheist it would just be wasting time. But as we have discussed on the christianity threads, it is definitely possible to do the asanas without believing they are a spiritual practice. Here is an analogy - if your friend went travelling, would she visit the great cathedrals of Europe? Would she observe the appropriate etiquette such as head covering? Would that make her uncomfortable that she was somehow performing a spiritual act?
Interesting question you have raised, though! | |
| | |
| kulkarnn - 2005-04-04 7:58 AM
To start with: What do you mean by you are Atheist? What is meant by your friend NOT feeling comfortable? When you practice Yoga: What is your meaning of Yoga and What is your goal in doing Yoga?
I'm an Atheist in the most literal meaning of the word. I don't believe in a deity, and I don't believe in any afterlife, reincarnation etc. etc. etc. I'm also not out to prove my beliefs to anyone or myself, and simply choose to live my own life with the understanding death is the end. Like most secular folks ethics, and repsect for humanity play a huge role in how I live my life.
My friend's discomfort made me sad more than anything. I don't believe she felt welcome in the community in part because of the spiritual aspects of Yoga.
My own goals in Yoga keep changing. At first I wanted to lose weight and relieve stress. After about a month I stopped caring about weight, and yoga became a journey of communicating with my body and learning to respect it's abilities. Yoga has essentially ended the war that I once fought with myself. Now I'm starting to go even deeper into the philosophies, and pranayama work.
For me there isn't a conflict. The Yama and the Niyamas, with the exception of Ishvara Pranidhana, seem to me like a code of ethics right in line with my own. I am enjoying the study, though obviously I don't always agree but I can't think of anything in my life I agree with totally.
I guess I worry that as I continue a conflict might arise, especially if in a few years I decide to train to be a teacher (something that admittedly is in the back of my mind). I'm also interested to learn if others have had similiar experiences and what their thoughts were. Discussing this with others can be another step in my own exploration of Yoga. | |
| | |
| Bruce - 2005-04-04 10:29 AM
Roxanne, your yoga and humanist nature has you thinking. As life adds experiences, you interact with others, face life's ups & downs, and question as you journey, you may very well alter your beliefs. You've probably heard the axiom, "There are no atheists in a foxhole." Don't think one can really appreciate the truth there until you've been in lie's foxholes where the individual is powerless to improve the situation and out of desparation, appeals to a higher power.
I have heard that saying. I have also been in a situation where I was in fact powerless and close to death. The idea of appealing to a higher power never occured to me because I don't believe such a power exists. Frankly I find that saying to be smug and insulting.
When my Grandmother was dying the hospital kept trying to force a chaplain on her. Her nurses and doctors couldn't comprehend that she didn't want any counseling of the religious nature. She couldn't understand why they wouldn't let her die in peace in the way she wanted to, and respect her beliefs. Again, appealing to a higher power that she didn't believe existed was a pointless excercise.
There is a common misconception that Atheists are simply angry at god or the universe. But you can't be angry at what you don't recognize in the first place. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | bomberpig - 2005-04-04 9:34 AM
What's a secular humanist ?
Similar to an "ethical humanist", I suppose. These are people who practice
certain spirtual beliefs without having any particular divine being at the top.
Some friends of mine had a beautiful wedding in the Ethical Humanist tradition.
I was interested enough to investigate a bit more, but I couldn't find much of
a core set of beliefs.
Here's a link for further information:
http://www.aeu.org/index.html
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | CGG - 2005-04-04 11:05 AM
Bruce - 2005-04-04 10:29 AM
Roxanne, your yoga and humanist nature has you thinking. As life adds experiences, you interact with others, face life's ups & downs, and question as you journey, you may very well alter your beliefs. You've probably heard the axiom, "There are no atheists in a foxhole." Don't think one can really appreciate the truth there until you've been in lie's foxholes where the individual is powerless to improve the situation and out of desparation, appeals to a higher power.
I have heard that saying. I have also been in a situation where I was in fact powerless and close to death. The idea of appealing to a higher power never occured to me because I don't believe such a power exists. Frankly I find that saying to be smug and insulting.
Amazing that this phrase should come up today. I was talking about that very phrase
at dinner last night (hint: I don't like it). The point is that when one is confronted
with imminent death, there's a natural tendency to try to avoid it -- as by seeking divine
intervention or reassurance.
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | tourist - 2005-04-04 10:38 AM
Roxanne - in my mind, a comitted atheist would have little problem dealing with the spiritual aspect of yoga. They would just reject and/or ignore it. OTOH, someone who was not firm in their (dis)beliefs would feel challenged when confronted with the possibility that they might have to examine their own spirituality or lack thereof. I can see a problem if the classes were heavily into meditation and talked about spiritual aspects throughout the class. To an atheist it would just be wasting time. But as we have discussed on the christianity threads, it is definitely possible to do the asanas without believing they are a spiritual practice. Here is an analogy - if your friend went travelling, would she visit the great cathedrals of Europe? Would she observe the appropriate etiquette such as head covering? Would that make her uncomfortable that she was somehow performing a spiritual act?
Interesting question you have raised, though!
I agree with all of this. I'll add that yoga had such profound physical and mental benefits
for me that I was moved to reassess decades of deliberate unspirituality and vocal atheism.
I still can't accept the notion of an active god (one who micromanages, or even thinks about,
human affairs), and I can't buy supernaturalism (flying yogis or water turning into wine),
and I can't take seriously most religious doctrine (with its pat answers to difficult human
problems), but I have come to believe that the human
psyche desires some kind of spiritual structure. Thousands of years of human wisdom are
mixed into all the great religious texts (along with dogma, mythology, and nonsense), and
it is hubris to ignore that wisdom on the sole basis of discounting diety. For me, there's
particularly great relevance in the Yoga Sutras where they deal with attachments,
conduct, and the search for peace.
In my mind, all of this collective humanity is what defines god, and god therefore pervades
all of us and all that we do --- Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma (from the Chandogya
Upanishad, ch.3). My own efforts to "become one with god" are directed at this humanity.
I don't know anything at all about dieties, I'm afraid.
There's a line in one of Palestrina's motets that addresses this desire for
the divine (from Psalm 42):
Sicut Cervus desiderat ad fontes aquarum, ita anima mea a te Deus.
One need not be a christian, or even bother to define "god" to appreciate the desire.
("As the Hart longs for the streams of water, so my soul [longs] for you, [O] God").
To come back to the question about yoga and spirituality, that's going to differ for each
person. For me, yoga was the trigger for desires that were latent, and it helped me
to realize better how I could separate spirituality from religious doctrine without simply
drifting into collection of fuzzy new-agey metaphors (have I mentioned that I'm down on
"new age" anything?). For our friend Jeri, yoga is just stretching and christianity is her path.
For Brother Neel, yoga is the complete foundation for life and an element of Hindu religion.
Oh...got get back to work...
| |
| | |
| Dear CCG:
I liked your description in the answers to my questions above. This is my response to your original question considering what you wrote as answers to my questions. Of course, if your answers to my questions change, my response also shall be modified.
- As for your friend, she probably has social problem, and also if you become teacher and you are atheistt, you shall have the problem. The problem is NOT that you are atheist. Problem is due to the fact that "Majority are NOT atheist, and minority is, which shall have problem". This majority and minority problem has always been there, in all fields, language, religion, caste, creed, economy, food habits, and whatever. So, you have to accept this situation and come up with a solution based on your philosophy.
- Now, out of all the goals you mentioned, except the goal of Philosophy and Social Acceptance in Yoga Circles, you do NOT need to believe in any deity, you do NOT have to do any Ishwarapranidhana.
- However, if you wish to get Philsophy knowledge, initially you do NOT need any Ishwarapranidhan. Patanjali says Ishwaraprranidhanadva... va means OR.
- However, final samadhi state is impossible without Ishwara Pranidhana. samaadhisidhdhiH Ishwarapranidhanat.
- So, you do not have to worry if you do not want the Ishwarapranidhan in the initial stages.
- And, if you are confused or unclear about Ishwara, then you need to get that sorted out.
Best Luck
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | I have a question for CGG and anyone else who claims they are Atheist. What do you believe in?? | |
| | |
| Bay Guy - 2005-04-04 12:15 PM
bomberpig - 2005-04-04 9:34 AM
What's a secular humanist ?
Similar to an "ethical humanist", I suppose. These are people who practice
certain spirtual beliefs without having any particular divine being at the top.
Some friends of mine had a beautiful wedding in the Ethical Humanist tradition.
I was interested enough to investigate a bit more, but I couldn't find much of
a core set of beliefs.
Here's a link for further information:
http://www.aeu.org/index.html
Secular Humanism is a bit different. Ethical humanists like the rituals and community that a churchlike setting offers. They are a religion and have developed their own community rituals for weddings, births, funerals etc. Secular Humanists don't do any of that, and we do not consider ourselves as being part of a religion. | |
| | |
| The problem is NOT that you are atheist. Problem is due to the fact that "Majority are NOT atheist, and minority is, which shall have problem". This majority and minority problem has always been there, in all fields, language, religion, caste, creed, economy, food habits, and whatever. So, you have to accept this situation and come up with a solution based on your philosophy.
Thanks Neel! This is quite a relief actually. Your responses have been most helpful to me.
| |
| | |
| CGG wrote: "Frankly I find that saying to be smug and insulting." Why would you find either of those negative qualities in the phrase?
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| >>I still can't accept the notion of an active god (one who micromanages, or even thinks about,
human affairs), and I can't buy supernaturalism (flying yogis or water turning into wine),
and I can't take seriously most religious doctrine (with its pat answers to difficult human
problems), but I have come to believe that the human
psyche desires some kind of spiritual structure. Thousands of years of human wisdom are
mixed into all the great religious texts (along with dogma, mythology, and nonsense), and
it is hubris to ignore that wisdom on the sole basis of discounting diety. For me, there's
particularly great relevance in the Yoga Sutras where they deal with attachments,
conduct, and the search for peace.
In my mind, all of this collective humanity is what defines god, and god therefore pervades
all of us and all that we do --- Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma (from the Chandogya
Upanishad, ch.3). My own efforts to "become one with god" are directed at this humanity.
I don't know anything at all about dieties, I'm afraid.<<
Great stuff Bay Guy - we are pretty much in agreement with our philosophies, I think! That might just be a first for this forum... I like the deities (all of them from almost all religions) and I like the idea that they are faces of god or that they represent aspects of god. To me it makes the most sense to have many, many faces - as you say the "collective Humanity". It is almost like there is one diety for each individual in the collective.
>>I'm down on "new age" anything.<< I'm sure that's part of my crankiness about the incense and music. Yuck! | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| CGG - I wonder if your friend might just be more comfortable with a different yoga atmosphere? Not all classes are heavily spiritually influenced. Of course, sometimes it is a small thing that bothers someone - we do the invocation to Patanjali at the beginning of class and we always offer the choice of joining in or not or to use the time as one sees fit (some of our students have said they say the Lords Prayer) but for some even that is threatening. But still, maybe she could find a class more to her liking? Of course, maybe she is just using it as an excuse because she didn't like it at all - one never knows...
>>For me there isn't a conflict. The Yama and the Niyamas, with the exception of Ishvara Pranidhana, seem to me like a code of ethics right in line with my own. I am enjoying the study, though obviously I don't always agree but I can't think of anything in my life I agree with totally.<<
This is a really clear statement of how I think a lot of people feel. It is interesting, it is something that challenges the mind and if there are things that don't fit - fine! As Neel pointed out - you can do a lot of studyig before Ishvara Pranidhana comes in to play. Many lifetimes perhaps!
 | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | tourist - 2005-04-04 8:00 PM
>>For me there isn't a conflict. The Yama and the Niyamas, with the exception of Ishvara Pranidhana, seem to me like a code of ethics right in line with my own. I am enjoying the study, though obviously I don't always agree but I can't think of anything in my life I agree with totally.<<
This is a really clear statement of how I think a lot of people feel. It is interesting, it is something that challenges the mind and if there are things that don't fit - fine! As Neel pointed out - you can do a lot of studyig before Ishvara Pranidhana comes in to play. Many lifetimes perhaps!
In his book, TKV Desikachar says something to the effect that one should not push
Ishwarapranidhan upon students, and that eventually most seem to find their own
way to it.
>>> I like the deities (all of them from almost all religions) and I like the idea that they are faces of god or that they represent aspects of god. <<< Yes, faces of god or faces of
humanity.
Om nama Sivaya.
| |
| | |
| Bruce - 2005-04-04 3:06 PM
CGG wrote: "Frankly I find that saying to be smug and insulting." Why would you find either of those negative qualities in the phrase?
Saying that in a life or death situation an Atheist will abandon their beliefs is disrespectful. Do I really need to try and explain this further? I've been thinking about how to respond to this post all afternoon, but I just don't know what else to say. If you can't understand why I find that saying to be smug and insulting then I don't think I could explain it to you. | |
| | |
| Dear Brother BayGuy:
I am not criticizing or judging you. But, liking different deities is NOT exactly what is meant by IshwaraPranidhana. Ishwarapranidhana is in Patanjali is 'tasya vaachakah pranavah, tadjapastadarthabhaavanam'. What TvK Desikachar wrote is already covered in Patanjali by one word 'va'. Ishwarapranidhanad va. va means OR.
Also, Deity may be an initial part of Ishwarapranidhana. It culminates in total surrender erasing one's ego.
Peace
Neel | |
| | |
| Actually I'm fairly bright and was not looking to be explained to; just wondered why you would take an age-old phrase so personally. CGG - 2005-04-04 10:57 PM Bruce - 2005-04-04 3:06 PM CGG wrote: "Frankly I find that saying to be smug and insulting." Why would you find either of those negative qualities in the phrase?
Saying that in a life or death situation an Atheist will abandon their beliefs is disrespectful. Do I really need to try and explain this further? I've been thinking about how to respond to this post all afternoon, but I just don't know what else to say. If you can't understand why I find that saying to be smug and insulting then I don't think I could explain it to you. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-04-05 12:08 AM
Dear Brother BayGuy:
I am not criticizing or judging you. But, liking different deities is NOT exactly what is meant by IshwaraPranidhana. Ishwarapranidhana is in Patanjali is 'tasya vaachakah pranavah, tadjapastadarthabhaavanam'. What TvK Desikachar wrote is already covered in Patanjali by one word 'va'. Ishwarapranidhanad va. va means OR.
Also, Deity may be an initial part of Ishwarapranidhana. It culminates in total surrender erasing one's ego.
Peace
Neel
Thanks, Neel. This I understand.
BG | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
One other question, Neel. Your comment above refers to Sutra 1:23 and following.
Ishwarapranidhana is also mentioned in Book 2 as one of the Niyamas (2:45).
I think that Desikachar was referring to 2:45 rather than 1:23 in his comment.
| |
| | |
| Dear Bay Guy:
I am extremely delighted by your observation of Two Ishwarapranidhana in the Patanjali.
The IP in the Chapter Two which is one of the Niyama, and it is the beginning practice. When completed, it culminates in the Second IP which is the one in the first chapter, and that Second IP only gives the asamprjnata samadhi. The first one is the beginning, the second one is the end.
The first one is in Second Chapter. The second one is in the First chapter !!!
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Dear Neel,
Taimni also noted the inverted sequence of the sutras in his commentaries.
He says that the Sutras were written essentially as a shorten reminder for
experienced yogis to memorize, assuming that they already understood the
concepts from other exposure. In discussing Samhadi, he recommended
sutras from book 3, then book 1, then book 2, if I remember correctly.
Bay Guy
| |
| | |
| Dear Brother Bay Guy:
Taimin is wrong. Sutras are not written for reminder to Yogis. Sutras are written in short form because sutra means the short form. Now, they are written short so that one can memorize the entire understanding in small space, which is the memory in this case. Later, when one studies them, or teaches the philosophy, one car reference them as needed.
Also, there is a very logical and correct reason why they are arranged in the way they are in 4 chapters. It is not correct to study 3rd first, then another etc. Though, in one particular case, such a study may not be harmful. This arrangement, we can address at another time. But, please note that they are arranged purposefully that way.
Peace
Neel | |
| | |
| Dear BG: I must with apology state that I did not mean directly comment on Taimini as I have not studied him. But, if that is what he wrote about arrangement of study, that is not correct. That is what I wish to state.
Regards
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
| I'll answer the humanist question. First, the official definition (from the American Humanist Association):
"Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as part of nature and holds that values - be they religious, ethical, social, or political - have their source in human nature, experience, and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny."
In other words, we believe that caring for each other (and that includes all humans on the planet) in the here and now is more important than worrying about the next life - whatever that may be.
I have no problem reconciling my humanist beliefs with my yoga practice. To me, god is a concept that represents the best within ourselves. I find a strong connection between the ethical values of humanism and the yamas and niyamas.
Of course, this returns us to the troublesome issue of Isvarapranidhana - submission to the highest divine being. As I Humanist, I accept the possibility that there could be a higher power - but I refuse to accept that notion on faith alone. During practice, I imagine Isvara to be that potential greatness within myself. Perhaps over time my beliefs will change. I'm open to that possibility.
Thanks for bringing up this topic. I've been thinking about it for a while. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-04-06 10:55 PM
Dear Brother Bay Guy:
Taimin is wrong. Sutras are not written for reminder to Yogis. Sutras are written in short form because sutra means the short form. Now, they are written short so that one can memorize the entire understanding in small space, which is the memory in this case. Later, when one studies them, or teaches the philosophy, one car reference them as needed.
Peace
Neel
Dear Brother Neel,
I may not be quoting Taimni with complete accuracy, since I am working from memory.
His main point is that those who originally learned the sutras were not basing their
understanding of yoga philosophy upon the sutras alone. They were familiar with
many other texts and teachings. Thus, the short verses would be easily understood
by them to imply many other things that are not directly stated in the sutras.
Bay Guy
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Bay Guy - good point. I think we often fail to see the sutras or other works within the context of their time and literature current with that time - including the Bible. | |
| | |
| Yes, Brother BG:
His point and your is correct. Sutras are NEVER to be understood only from the Sutras. This applies to all Sutras. Sutras are written short only for condensing the space and memorization. Now, when one studies them, one has to have a resource who can comment on them to give the correct understanding. This applies to all the Sutras. Also, there are subtle differences in certain philosophies and that is why one needs a good teacher. Others mess it up as I wrote in the past, for example, 'yoga is stopping of waves in the mind stuff'. !!!
Also, generally sutras are NEVERoriginal work they are summarization of previous understanding.
And, as I wrote previously Patanjali Yoga Sutras are summarization of Advaita Vedanta (Non Dualistic Philosophy). Many world famous commentators has wrongly commented on them as Dualistic, and also Patanjali is NOT a Samkhya Philosophy as told by many world famous commentators. Of course, there is a common overlap between Patanjali and Samkhya. But, Patanjali is summarization of Advaita Vedanta.
Namaste.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-04-07 11:19 PM
And, as I wrote previously Patanjali Yoga Sutras are summarization of Advaita Vedanta (Non Dualistic Philosophy).
Namaste.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org
Can you recommend a good overview of Advaita Vedanta --- or is that simply Patanjali?
| |
| | |
| Dear BG:
No, Patanjali is only summarization of Advaita Vedanta for Practical Purpose which means it contains Practical Aspect completely and scientifically, which can never be skipped by any path which is correct towards Self or God realization.
But, Patanjali gives Principle part of AV only as much as is necessary.
For real summarization of AV, you can refer to 1. Vedantasaarasangraha of Shree Adi Shankaracharya 2. Brahmasutras of Shree Veda Vyasa. 3. Commentary on Upanishadas and Bhagavadgita by Adi Shankaracharya.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | Thanks, Neel.
| |
| | |
| i consider myself an atheist b/c i dont believe in god, the devil, afterlife, miracles, etc.....
however this doesnt ever come up in yoga class. so its not a conflict for me...
what i do "believe" in is respecting all life (i guess a taoist view) and that there is an energy in the earth and every living thing connecting us, and if we hurt the earth or an animal or a tree, etc, we are hurting ourselves, and to me thats the feel i get when i do yoga, im respecting myself..
but i dont consider my views a religion of any sort, philosophy maybe....
but i have made some major life changes at the same time i started doing yoga at a studio., becoming a vegetarian, not buying products tested on animals, etc.
i think we have a long way to go in this country and world, and in my opinion religion just gets in the way, and yes there are great christians, buddhists, muslims etc. but i can respect anyone that judges others, and thats my real offense to chrisitanity, i guess specifically catholicism
not to start a debate here, but what i meant is that if we all just take the mindedness of yoga and apply it to life, we would be in a better state | |
| | |
| Dear osujen25:
I kind of like what you say above. But, that is considering 'Problem Aspect' of social life. In other words, you are saying that let us do Mindfulness Of Yoga, because the other things mentioned by you create problems. However, the real aspect of any science is Pure Knowledge which automatically includes the truth, joy, happiness, good of all, etc. In this Real Aspect of life, when you study Yoga (may be in the future), you can not ignore the Aspect of God, called as Ishwara. Now, God is having different definitions in different religions. However, in Yoga, God has a specific understanding. And, all that you like you said above, such as energy and what not, they are part of the God in Yoga. So, you can never escape from concept of God, if you comprehend the entire Yoga. For this, you have to study Yoga Philosophy.
Anyway, I am not criticizing you, I am only making a comment with observation.
Peace
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
| i totally understand what you are saying, i personally dont consider it a religion, but yes it is i guess, an energy is an energy. but i feel it is just life! i dont really know what Yoga specifically says/describes. so if my belief is it then great!
i know sometimes i feel mankind is beyond hope and would rather save the trees and animals, but i do love mankind, and the people that are good (and bad, i guess b/c i dont hate!) but it is frustrating.
i know personally sometimes when i do yoga just the namaste at the end gets me emotional, so if thats the religion side, then im all for it. i just dont believe there is some person sitting up there. or some end point we are going for. life's a journey
namaste | |
| | |
| No Dear Osujen: Be assured, there is NO person sitting up there. Why would he/she sit up there? That person is everywhere, in each and everything here. In you, in me and all around. However, to know that person, we have to do Yoga. And, that is called as:
sarvam khalu idam brahma. tat tvam asi. Vedas - 5000+ Before Christ.
I think you are on the right track.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | kulkarnn - 2005-04-29 9:58 PM
No Dear Osujen: Be assured, there is NO person sitting up there. Why would he/she sit up there? That person is everywhere, in each and everything here. In you, in me and all around. However, to know that person, we have to do Yoga. And, that is called as:
sarvam khalu idam brahma. tat tvam asi. Vedas - 5000+ Before Christ.
It's all right here, right now, waiting for us to find it.
Om nama Sivaya.....Namaste
| |
| | |
| Hello everyone,
This is a nice discussion.
I think both Yoga and Vedanta (there are many kinds of Vedanta but I'm sticking to one style of understanding), in some form or other, can really be explained in a simple way that an atheist can understand and even relate with, given some open-mindedness. I will try to explain in a way that I think can help some people think about the basis of the tradition, without preconcieved notions.
As such, the main question that must be asked is: "Who am I?"
The person, you, by definition is the subject, not the object. So you are the entity that watches, that witnesses.
So lets look at some theories about who you could be:
Am I my body? Look at your body, be aware of it. You are the witness being aware of the body, so you can't be the body. There is someone there who is aware of the body, and that must be you!
Am I my mind? This is a theory that more people take. But what is the mind? Does the mind have a shape? Does the mind have a colour? If you watch your mind for a while, you see that it is just a groups of thoughts and mental activity. Is there anything left of your mind when you take out your mental activity? If you look, you are unlikely to find anything, so the mind is just a proccess. In that sense mind exists only in time, because over time different thoughts may come, different proccesses but thats it. You cannot be this group of mental proccesses because you can witness these. So this means that you are witness.
So what is the witness? The witness in general is the very principle of awareness. Yoga says that you are pure Awareness. You are the witness of all that happens to your body, mind, etc...
Now this witness, you, have a sense of being, an "I-am" sense, a self-awareness. According to Yoga and Vedanta This is your Soul, your Self.
Now according to the Upanishads, You are Brahman, you are not just "your" Self, but the Universal Self.
The reason for this is actually quite simple. The Self-Awareness itself, your true nature, is identical to the true nature of anyone else. You might argue "no, because this person has different experiences, feelings, etc..." But all these come after the "I am". "I am this, I am that, I am the person who whom this happened", etc... the this and that comes after the "I am". The pure sense of "I am", being itself, free from anything additional, that is the same in every person. So when I get to the root of who I am, it is exactly the same as who are you are. Thus the Self is not something personal, it is universal, its Brahman.
Now yoga holds that when you know you are pure awareness, this brings enormous peace and joy. You have already had a taste of this as you practice yoga, because you know that as you practice you become more peaceful and happy. Now if one takes this to the extreme, if one is perfected yogi, what kind of peace and joy do you think there would be? Its unimaginable! You can also count on the testimony of mystics from all traditions, whether Hindu, Christian, Sufi, Buddhist, etc... So this the reason why you want to intuitively and experientially know your true nature, because of the inexpressible peace it brings.
So your true nature, this awareness, is the same as God, the universal consciousness. So in essence you are trying to find your trying to know your "own face". To remind you to do this, and to make it easier for you to stay on the path, you can personify your true nature. So you can choose a deity that you can identify with, but understand that this deity is simply your own true nature. By being devoted to it, you are asking your own nature to reveal itself and so this is the same effect as yoga. With yoga you remove your defilements to come closer to your true nature and with devotion you ask your true nature to come closer to you.
According to modern science, a table is energy and a chair is energy. So why do they look different? It because when there is a certain arrangement of energy, the mind cognizes it as a chair and when there is a another arrangement of energy, the mind cognizes it as a table. So the world as you know it, all the objects in it, everything you ever see, comes into being when energy meets awareness. You might be shocked, but this is exactly what is held by Hindu philosophy, in particular Tantric philosophy. The primordial energy is Shakti, and when this Shakti interacts with Shiva (consciousness), the rest of the world starts to appear. It is the same in Yoga (from Samkhya) too, the original matter (Prakriti) interacts with Purusha (consciousness) to produce the world. So the principle of God as creator makes more sense now. However, Tantric philosophy goes one steps further and states that the primordial energy and consciousness are one.
So in this sense it is the awareness (God) which is the same as your true nature that really allows for the creation of the universe as we know it. Thus, we say that God is the creator.
There is much more and this is already a very long post, but when one looks at the way the tradition deals with these matters it is really very logical and rational - there is no superstition involved as far as the most basic tenents of practice go. If you can identify with what I say I suggest you choose a deity to represent your true, enlightened nature and remember it everyone once in a while as a way of keeping in touch with your true nature,
Regards. | |
| | |
| Thanks for a truly remarkable explanation, Rishi. All I can add to that is Amen,.....or is it OM?
Namaste | |
| | |
| Very well written, belovedofthegod.
Does your interpretation also reconcile Ramanuja's dualistic philosophy which apparently BKS Iyengar subscribes to.
Thanks. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
Oh, this is curious...I had the sense that Iyengar followed Patanjali
in a NONDUALISTIC philosophy. I've been reading his commentary
on the Sutras, and I did catch a dualistic point of view. Can you clarify
this comment?
| |
| | |
| Dear HotYogi,
"Does your interpretation also reconcile Ramanuja's dualistic philosophy which apparently BKS Iyengar subscribes to."
Well Ramanuja philosophy is considered a modified non-dualism in that it does posit only existent. The world is sort of the body of the Absolute. I'm not sure what BKS Iyengar subscribes to (I haven't read any work by him) but I geuss some for of classical Advaita Vedanta (Sankaran). As such I don't think the two can be reconciled as systems and they are meant for a different mode of practice. In Advaita Vedanta, mystical experience is very important but Ramanuja is purely theistic and his system is one that goes with devotional practice (according to the Sri Vaisnavas, Ramanuja was the incarnation of Lakshman). What I say in my post (which is very general to different styles of philosophy, it was more a mode of approach than a technical precise philosophy) is compatible with Sankara's philosophy and Advaita in general, but not with Ramanuja as the emphasis here is very different, the goal is to go to paradise after death.
In the Upanishads we have both a theistic conception of the Ultimate and an impersonal one and Sankara took up the impersonal one (however, he was devotee and created room for devotion in his system) whilst Ramanuja took up the theistic one.
"Oh, this is curious...I had the sense that Iyengar followed Patanjali
in a NONDUALISTIC philosophy. I've been reading his commentary
on the Sutras, and I did catch a dualistic point of view. Can you clarify
this comment?"
Very often the Sutras are interpreted in light of non-dual Vedanta, it is one of the problems with a lot of interpretation. The Sutras are part of Yoga Darshana whoose philosophy is basically Samkhya Darshana. Samkhya is usually described as radical dualism. There are two principles, Prakriti (matter or nature) and Purusha (consciousness) and their interaction creates all in the universe starting from the Buddhi (the intellect, or the higher mind), which can be likened to a higher mind. The problem is that Purusha has forgotten who he is and thinks he is some form of prakriti. So the purpose of yoga is actually to seperate Purusha and Prakriti so Purusha can become liberated. In yoga too, this system is the same. There is an Ishwara (Lord) but not as a creator God, but a great purusha who is free from afflictions, has the highest ability in omniscience (I believe omnipotence isn't included though), untouched by time, etc... So it could be some form of God, but it could also be a Master, or some other being. A great person, literally!
There is of course scope for what people would call non-dual experience in Yoga, but the actual system is dualistic,
Regards.
| |
| | |
| Thanks Belovedofthe god.
Does that mean Patanjali's sutras reflect a dualistic philosophy by separating ishwara and purusha.
Doestn't advaita vedanta say that when purusha realizes his self by shedding all the outward koshas, then he merges with the supreme consciousness while the dualists looking at the same coin from the other side say the soul is libereted but is a distinct entity from the supreme being.
In your view, in which category do the yoga sutras fall? | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | http://www.yoga.com/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=18214&start=1
We had some discussion of dualism and nondualism in the thread above.
The sense at the time was that Patanjali's sutras are non-dualistic. | |
| | |
| Hello HotYogi,
"Does that mean Patanjali's sutras reflect a dualistic philosophy by separating ishwara and purusha."
The dualism is not between Ishwara and Purusha, Ishwara is a type of Purusha. The duality is between Purusha and Prakriti, consciousness and matter.
"Doestn't advaita vedanta say that when purusha realizes his self by shedding all the outward koshas, then he merges with the supreme consciousness while the dualists looking at the same coin from the other side say the soul is libereted but is a distinct entity from the supreme being.
In your view, in which category do the yoga sutras fall?"
Neither, these are both Vedantic positions (one is dualistic and the other isn't). But Yoga darshana isn't a Vedantic position, it is based on Samkhya. There is no "Supreme Being" in that sense (Ishwara is just a very special purusha, and doesn't bestow grace, create the universe, etc... just an object of devotion and contemplation). For the Yoga Sutras liberation is when the witness (Purusha) knows that he is the witness and that he is not Prakriti (he is not the elements, not the mind, not the intellect).
"We had some discussion of dualism and nondualism in the thread above.
The sense at the time was that Patanjali's sutras are non-dualistic."
This is a very common view and it is as a result of nearly all orthodox (non-tantrika) Swamis, Yogis, etc... being Advaita Vedantins. They reinterpret the yogasutra in light of their own philosophy and make it seem like this has always been the case. In fact, Yoga-Darshana's worldview is structurally identical to Samkhya and Vedantins of every kind (including and especially Sankara) have been strongly criticizing Samkhya in the past,
Regards. | |
| | |
| Thanks.
How did the orthodox position against samkhya evolve? Did sankara criticize it becasue of it's theistic foundation? | |
| | |
| Hi,
"How did the orthodox position against samkhya evolve? Did sankara criticize it becasue of it's theistic foundation?"
While Yoga has room for Ishwara (though in limited capacity), Samkhya is purely atheistic. Criticism was a prefectly normal thing in India, debates always had an important role amongst the spiritual learned. All the Hindu schools debated with the Buddhist schools, there were inter-debate in Hindu schools (even within Vedanta, Ramanuja criticised lot of Sankara's position for instance) and Buddhist schools.
There are some serious problems in the Samkhya philosophy, for one thing it cannot account really account for how the Purusha came to be identified with Prakriti if it was originally omniscient. Another problem is that if all Purushas are pure awareness, then how can we say there are many Purushas? Whats the difference between the various Purushas?
As for the orthodox position evolved, the orthodox position is based on the original Vedanta darshana. There are six darshanas, or systems of thought from the classical Hindu period. Samkhya is one, Vedanta another and Yoga yet another. Another important school was the Nyaya who was responsible for systemazing and arranging much of Indian logic. All the darshanas are based on the Vedas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads. The Purva Mimamsa school focuses largely on the ritualistic texts such as the Brahmanas and the ritual portion of the Vedas. Samkhya and Vedanta are both largely based on the Upanishads.
Of course keep in mind that while scriptural testimony was one source of information, it was by no means the major one; the systems used scripture when helpful but wern't bound by it. This to an extent allowed for a very dynamic tradition of new philosophies emmerging for a very long time without being considered heresies, getting prosecuted, etc...
Regards. | |
| | |
| Returning to the original topic of secular humanism and yoga, I had a moment of clarity on the train this morning. (I was reading Rolf Gates' book, so perhaps he deserves the credit.)
As secular humanists, we view the belief in the afterlife as counterproductive to life in the here in now (regardless of whether there is an afterlife). In effect, if people are living for the next life, they're not doing everything that they can to better themselves and humanity today.
In yoga, we are striving to live fully in the current moment, not lost in thoughts of yesterday or visions of tomorrow, in order to free our minds from our usual thoughts and habits.
In summary, both yogic and humanistic philosophy directs us to focus fully on the present moment, demonstrating a commonality between the two philosophies.
| |
| | |
| Mitch - 2005-05-10 1:25 PM
As secular humanists, we view the belief in the afterlife as counterproductive to life in the here in now (regardless of whether there is an afterlife). In effect, if people are living for the next life, they're not doing everything that they can to better themselves and humanity today.
In yoga, we are striving to live fully in the current moment, not lost in thoughts of yesterday or visions of tomorrow, in order to free our minds from our usual thoughts and habits.
In summary, both yogic and humanistic philosophy directs us to focus fully on the present moment, demonstrating a commonality between the two philosophies.
That's so true. It's part of why I like yoga so much. The focus on the present is so humanisitc. It's easy to relate one to the other. I tend to think of yoga as a form of humanism, though obviously not a secular form. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
I'd certainly agree that some aspects of yoga (such as the yamas) are
very much about living in the here and now.
| |
| |
|
Yoga and Atheism