Should Christians practice Yoga?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
There are many underlying spiritual aspects of Yoga, chiefly the goal of reaching Moksha - "the liberation of the soul". Yoga literally means to unite, and is the sum total of all activities — mental, verbal and physical — attempting to become one with the essense of god.

This is inconflict with the christian view that God is to be worshiped as a supreme being.

But how many casual yoga participants really think about becoming one with God. They jsut feel good after stretching. Just change to name to something other than yoga and people would not even notice.

Kind of like reading a harry Potter book. most kids will read them and just enjoy the story. The extremists will yell that it teaches kid witchcraft and is evil.
 
Last edited:

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
But how many casual yoga participants really think about becoming one with God. They jsut feel good after stretching. Just change to name to something other than yoga and people would not even notice.

Yup - This is why the complaints made by the Southern Baptist Seminary President are asinine.
 
Last edited:

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,682
7,181
136
Good thread. Learned a lot.

Have to agree that if folks are solidly grounded in their faith, they can use whatever considered resources are available to them for the benefit of themselves and their faith and not worry about being corrupted in any way. ie- Bingo for fundraising, "yoga" or martial arts for taking care of "gods temple" (the physical body) via strenuous physical activity and/or mental relaxation etc.
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Thank you for this thread, though I read with interest not the many remarks that yoga in America is just physical exercise, but the contrary point of view about Hinduism and also words from the originator of this round of Christian resistance to the new and different, however old.

For example:

Most of those who urge a reconciliation of evolution and the Christian faith do so at the most superficial level, without ever acknowledging the near-total transformation of Christian theology that must result if serious minds ask the serious questions and do the serious work of actually thinking seriously.

I present this as a remarkable observation, which is mostly true and shows something quite different from what the author intended. The author intended this to show that Christianity, which he sees as solid, cannot be adapted to evolution or to other non-Biblical ideas. What it shows instead in this view is that, as evolution has far more solid grounds than the contrary, that the interpretation which Mohler adheres to should be seriously doubted and reconsidered.

Mohler also provides a service by drawing attention to the adoption of Yoga in America in its apparent turn towards the syncretic, drawing on Stefanie Syman's writing while disputing the limited view this provides. In this, he is correct. Yoga is not just exercise, and is certainly not adequately or well represented by American writers, instructors or practitioners. That it is adopted at all, let alone as pervasively as it has become, I think is an indication of its depth and a recognition of the inadequacy of what is otherwise available.

Yoga to many is just exercise, and Mohler is wrong to portray it as a betrayal of Christian faith. By doing so in my view he makes it harder to be or become Christian and at peace with the rest of the world than it need be.

For a Christian to take offense at the Hindu notion of an immanent God is in my view to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. For a Hindu to take offense at the word or notion of Christ is similarly a failure to appreciate the immanent God, a failure to understand Hinduism more broadly and specifically the words of Krishna.

But God help the Christian and the Hindu, and the Muslim, and the Buddhist, and the Zoroastrian, among others, who are already at their wit's end trying to understand their own religion let alone that of another. But this He does, if only they let Him -- in fact by way of other religions.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,720
6,201
126
LOL! It's not that. The simple fact is that nobody is completely impervious to their surroundings, friends, and associates. So, as the old adage goes, "Tell me who your friends are, I'll tell you who you are", is the reason many Hindus are orthodox. It should be made clear though that they don't do it contemptuously like the muslims who think if you drink alcohol, you're filth. They just don't want to associate themselves with people who have habits that are not life-affirming or can be detrimental to the health of the body and mind.



That is a very philosophical question and so the short answer is simply to transcend the mind, which gives rise to the ego (ahamkara), in order to realize the divine (Supreme/God/Ooga Booga/whatever it's called). This is ultimately the purpose and import of Yoga. Asana, the physical aspect of Yoga, prepares the body to remain still so that one can undertake the highly demanding task of meditating and intense concentration. This path is not for everybody; it is called Raja Yoga (Raja means "king" so it is the "King of the Yogas" because it uses the mind to transcend the mind).

In fact, even in Buddhism, "Nirvana", actually means cessation of thought- to still and empty the mind of thoughts; once the mind is stilled, the ego ceases to exist! Once that happens, only the Supreme is left and one becomes "enlightened" or a "Buddha".

Actually, this is the fundamental difference between Buddhism & Hinduism. Buddhists will say once one attains Nirvana, there is "nothing" left; there is no "Self". Hindus say the only thing that exists, according to one school of thought called Advaita (non-dual) Vedanta, is Brahman (God/Self/Atman); in other words, there isn't only one God, there is ONLY GOD.
The reason I asked about why folk don't want to mingle as I asked you about above is because, if as you say, there is only God, and they just don't want to associate themselves with people who have habits that are not life-affirming or can be detrimental to the health of the body and mind, they are really saying they don't want to associate with God, no? If there is only God what's this worry about contamination?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Thank you for this thread, though I read with interest not the many remarks that yoga in America is just physical exercise, but the contrary point of view about Hinduism and also words from the originator of this round of Christian resistance to the new and different, however old.

For example:



I present this as a remarkable observation, which is mostly true and shows something quite different from what the author intended. The author intended this to show that Christianity, which he sees as solid, cannot be adapted to evolution or to other non-Biblical ideas. What it shows instead in this view is that, as evolution has far more solid grounds than the contrary, that the interpretation which Mohler adheres to should be seriously doubted and reconsidered.

Mohler also provides a service by drawing attention to the adoption of Yoga in America in its apparent turn towards the syncretic, drawing on Stefanie Syman's writing while disputing the limited view this provides. In this, he is correct. Yoga is not just exercise, and is certainly not adequately or well represented by American writers, instructors or practitioners. That it is adopted at all, let alone as pervasively as it has become, I think is an indication of its depth and a recognition of the inadequacy of what is otherwise available.

Yoga to many is just exercise, and Mohler is wrong to portray it as a betrayal of Christian faith. By doing so in my view he makes it harder to be or become Christian and at peace with the rest of the world than it need be.

For a Christian to take offense at the Hindu notion of an immanent God is in my view to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. For a Hindu to take offense at the word or notion of Christ is similarly a failure to appreciate the immanent God, a failure to understand Hinduism more broadly and specifically the words of Krishna.

But God help the Christian and the Hindu, and the Muslim, and the Buddhist, and the Zoroastrian, among others, who are already at their wit's end trying to understand their own religion let alone that of another. But this He does, if only they let Him -- in fact by way of other religions.

Interesting post, thanks.
 

TheDoc9

Senior member
May 26, 2006
264
0
0
To answer the op's question: Yes, it can be very beneficial. As far as the religion that's commonly associated with it; Buddhism, that's up to each individual person.

The pastor just wants to keep his congregation under control. Ironically this will almost certainly have the opposite effect since he's voiced his concern.
 

Baasha

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2010
1,997
20
81
Yoga to many is just exercise, and Mohler is wrong to portray it as a betrayal of Christian faith.

I have to disagree with you there. What practitioners of "Yoga" in the west do is not Yoga; that is crux of this whole argument. If they claim they are practicing Yoga; then they are most certainly not being true to their abrahamic religious philosophy which emphasizes the distinction between the Supreme and oneself (ie. that the Creation and the Creator are separate). The goal of Yoga, as aforementioned, is to curtail the mind and eventually realize that the ego is ultimately unreal and thus seek union with the Supreme; Yoga, the word, itself means to "yoke" or in kindergarten terms, unify the soul (known as jivatma) with the Supreme (paramatma).

As ironic as it sounds, most Hindus would tend to agree with the religious fanatics of the abrahamic religions in this matter.
 

Baasha

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2010
1,997
20
81
The reason I asked about why folk don't want to mingle as I asked you about above is because, if as you say, there is only God, and they just don't want to associate themselves with people who have habits that are not life-affirming or can be detrimental to the health of the body and mind, they are really saying they don't want to associate with God, no? If there is only God what's this worry about contamination?

This is a good question and can be answered using analogies. Keep in mind, however, that my answers are with respect to only one school of philosophy within Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism), mainly Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism).

The conundrum of "everything is God" has to be approached dispassionately. A simple analogy is a dream. Everyone has had a dream they can remember at some time or another.

In the dream, there are many objects, persons, events, conversations etc. etc. Once you awake from the dream, you would likely say the dream was "unreal". However, in the dream-state (called "Taijasya"), the entire "dream" was real to the experiencer; you. Your mind created all the objects, events, people, conversations etc. in the dream and in that dream, you had the feeling of being separate and distinct from "others". How is this possible? It was your mind-stuff, latent tendencies, karmas that created these thoughts that surfaced during your dream-state. How can there be a perception of separation or distinction when that which created those objects/persons was the "same thing" (the mind)? This "illusion" is what is called Maya. Those who are enlightened say that we are in a very long dream-like state and to awaken from it, there are many paths; of which Yoga is one. This is something that happens over many lifetimes as the only immutable "thing" is the Atman (the undifferentiated consciousness aka the "soul"). Yet, when this apparent creation takes place, all the manifestations are NOT equal. That is why the "soul" in manifested beings is called "jivatma".

In fact, Samkhya philosophy (metaphysics), states that the Supreme soul, called Purusha, creates using the creative intelligence (called Prakriti) present in the Supreme Being (Brahman) and "delves" into the creation to find itself through many births, deaths, and transformations.

Since the manifestations are not the "same", during this "creation", we see the multiplicity of that Supreme creative intelligence (Prakriti). Once the veil of ignorance (Avidya) is removed, we see the undifferentiated consciousness and thus become "Self-realized" or EXPERIENCE the "unity consciousness".

With regards to daily life and traditions/habits etc., since in this "dream" of creation not everything is the same, we cannot treat it as such; we simply do not have that ability until the ego ceases to exist. Plus, all these "things", people etc. have their own purpose and reason for being here. It is like saying a banana is made of atoms and so is a steaming pile of shit, so we can eat both and we will be okay! That would be absurd right? But at the atomic level, and at the level of consciousness, not just everyone, but everything is that one Supreme Being (Brahman). This is why Hindus see everything and everyone as "sacred". This is the reason for "Namaste" - "The Supreme in me bows to the Supreme in you".

Sanatana Dharma is extremely complex and that is why there are various paths, traditions, and seemingly contradictory philosophies lumped together; it is NOT a 'one-size fits all' religion. Depending on each person's spiritual and intellectual maturity, there are paths available to realize the goal.

A man who meditates on Shiva in a cave in the Himalayas is considered a Hindu and a man who meditates on a corpse on the bank of the Ganges is also considered a Hindu. There is no "best" path. There is only the "best path for you"!

If people are interested, I can create a thread in Off-Topic about Hinduism and you guys can ask questions and discuss. (?)
 

Baasha

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2010
1,997
20
81
To answer the op's question: Yes, it can be very beneficial. As far as the religion that's commonly associated with it; Buddhism,

This is completely erroneous. Yoga is fundamental to Hinduism and NOT Buddhism. Aspects of Yoga (meditation, moral rectitude etc.) are used in Buddhism/Jainism but the core philosophy of Yoga is definitely not part of Buddhism.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
This is completely erroneous. Yoga is fundamental to Hinduism and NOT Buddhism. Aspects of Yoga (meditation, moral rectitude etc.) are used in Buddhism/Jainism but the core philosophy of Yoga is definitely not part of Buddhism.

Aren't Buddhism and Jainism descendants of Hinduism?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,720
6,201
126
Thank you again for your answer.

Baasha: This is a good question and can be answered using analogies. Keep in mind, however, that my answers are with respect to only one school of philosophy within Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism), mainly Advaita Vedanta (non-dualism).

M: I can keep this in mind only technically because I know nothing so I won't be making any true or false assumptions regarding any school.

B: The conundrum of "everything is God" has to be approached dispassionately. A simple analogy is a dream. Everyone has had a dream they can remember at some time or another.

In the dream, there are many objects, persons, events, conversations etc. etc. Once you awake from the dream, you would likely say the dream was "unreal". However, in the dream-state (called "Taijasya"), the entire "dream" was real to the experience; you. Your mind created all the objects, events, people, conversations etc. in the dream and in that dream, you had the feeling of being separate and distinct from "others". How is this possible? It was your mind-stuff, latent tendencies, karmas that created these thoughts that surfaced during your dream-state. How can there be a perception of separation or distinction when that which created those objects/persons was the "same thing" (the mind)? This "illusion" is what is called Maya. Those who are enlightened say that we are in a very long dream-like state and to awaken from it, there are many paths; of which Yoga is one.

m: I follow you up to here, I think. I have heard the enlightened don't dream. Hehe.

B: This is something that happens over many lifetimes as the only immutable "thing" is the Atman (the undifferentiated consciousness aka the "soul").

M: I see this as a religious belief of which I have no proof and no idea. I hear you, but I don't believe what you say, not because I don't want to, I like the idea, but because I know only what I experience and I have no sense of past lives.

B: Yet, when this apparent creation takes place, all the manifestations are NOT equal. That is why the "soul" in manifested beings is called "jivatma".

M: I just don't follow what you mean here. What are some manifestations and why are they not equal? Maybe you are saying that everybody isn't on the same plane of spiritual evolution, right?

B: In fact, Samkhya philosophy (metaphysics), states that the Supreme soul, called Purusha, creates using the creative intelligence (called Prakriti) present in the Supreme Being (Brahman) and "delves" into the creation to find itself through many births, deaths, and transformations.

M: Ah, I have heard that God created the Universe, dreamed the universe to know via its manifestation in reality who he is. I tend to see these things as intellectual efforts to explain paradoxes that defy logical understanding, sort of like the world rests on a turtle and it's turtles all the way down. I rather think that the human soul was created by the laws of the universe and is therefore a manifestation of that law. We love because its what the universe evolves into when there is consciousness.

B: Since the manifestations are not the "same", during this "creation", we see the multiplicity of that Supreme creative intelligence (Prakriti). Once the veil of ignorance (Avidya) is removed, we see the undifferentiated consciousness and thus become "Self-realized" or EXPERIENCE the "unity consciousness".

M: Not sure what this means if not lots of folk at different levels of spiritual revelation and a few who know the truth.

B: With regards to daily life and traditions/habits etc., since in this "dream" of creation not everything is the same, we cannot treat it as such; we simply do not have that ability until the ego ceases to exist.

M: I get this but why set a precedent of avoiding the poorly evolved because you yourself are poorly evolved. It sets up an excuse for personal failure. I can't have any contact with 'bad' people because I'm too weak and evolved, but someday, in a million years, I will be.

B: Plus, all these "things", people etc. have their own purpose and reason for being here. It is like saying a banana is made of atoms and so is a steaming pile of shit, so we can eat both and we will be okay! That would be absurd right? But at the atomic level, and at the level of consciousness, not just everyone, but everything is that one Supreme Being (Brahman).

M: But isn't this just stoking the ego, saying 'I an fit to determine this or that person's real purpose and relative shitiness'?

B: This is why Hindus see everything and everyone as "sacred". This is the reason for "Namaste" - "The Supreme in me bows to the Supreme in you".

M: Nice, but how are you going to bow to folk you want to avoid? It sounds hypocritical to me. Jesus collected such folk as a matter of course, and was crucified with criminals. Are you saying that's just because he was enlightened and didn't want to set an example for others to follow?

B: Sanatana Dharma is extremely complex and that is why there are various paths, traditions, and seemingly contradictory philosophies lumped together; it is NOT a 'one-size fits all' religion. Depending on each person's spiritual and intellectual maturity, there are paths available to realize the goal.

M: This is a profound truth in my opinion in a world chuck full of only religions.

B: A man who meditates on Shiva in a cave in the Himalayas is considered a Hindu and a man who meditates on a corpse on the bank of the Ganges is also considered a Hindu. There is no "best" path. There is only the "best path for you"!

M: But is this something you or a wise teacher decides? What if such a teacher says sleep with prostitutes. I think that the path that is proper for each person is dependent on where he is blind and the blind have no idea where they are blind. But, if we are not enlightened, in my opinion, then we are blind somewhere.
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
As ironic as it sounds, most Hindus would tend to agree with the religious fanatics of the abrahamic religions in this matter.

Such is always the way of chauvinists and religious fanatics on all sides. But God is One, and in the end it matter not one whit what religion you label yourself with. It is however a deep shame that while claiming to promote the all-encompassing view which Hinduism has at its origin that you maintain artificial distinctions among religions as important, instead of One and what That entails.
 
Last edited:

Baasha

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2010
1,997
20
81
Such is always the way of chauvinists and religious fanatics on all sides. But God is one, and in the end it matter not one whit what religion you label yourself with. It is however a deep shame that while claiming to promote the all-encompassing view which Hinduism has at its origin that you maintain artificial distinctions among religion as important, and not instead the one God and the common truth that this God entails throughout.

First, distinctions in this world (manifestation) are an absolute must. Why? One cannot lead life without distinction and understanding the various objects, people, animals etc. and their purpose. Simply by stating, "All is one" does not make anybody more universal in their outlook. This is especially true of abrahamics that stress exclusivist ideologies.

Furthermore, what does, "the one God" mean? Who said there is "one God"? You see, this is where the whole problem with religion arises; when every Tom, Dick, and Harry pontificates on philosophy that is only peripherally understood. The abrahmic idea of "one God" that is completely separate and distinct is most definitely NOT the same "God" that Hindus/Sikhs/Buddhists/Jains espouse. If you read my earlier post, you would understand that some Hindus would say there are an infinite number of Gods/Goddesses, some would say one Supreme God (Vishnu or Shiva), and others still, that only God alone exists and to think anything can exist outside that infinite consciousness is the height of ignorance and egotistic malaise. This is the antipode of what christians/muslims/jews describe as their "God".

I am vehemently against what is known as "Radical Universalism" that Hinduism is nowadays associated with. This is a scheme by anti-Hindus to prevent Hindus from having a distinct identity, philosophy, and even "religion" that has its own basis for perceiving the nature of reality. Hindus do NOT have to accept others' so-called prophets and saints in order to practice their philosophy.
 
Last edited:

Baasha

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2010
1,997
20
81
Thank you again for your answer.

No problem. This is an interesting discussion.

B: This is something that happens over many lifetimes as the only immutable "thing" is the Atman (the undifferentiated consciousness aka the "soul").

M: I see this as a religious belief of which I have no proof and no idea. I hear you, but I don't believe what you say, not because I don't want to, I like the idea, but because I know only what I experience and I have no sense of past lives.

Sure, that is a valid assessment. At the same time, you cannot dismiss the possibility of such phenomena because there are several mutually exclusive factors that point to them. For example, you must have heard of hypnotic regression (?). The subconscious is supposed to remember every THOUGHT, not just lifetime. So, to delve into this subconscious and peer into the depths of one's own mind is a serious yet illuminating journey. You might ask, "This could be some Hindu gobble-de-beloved patriot so how can I verify this?"

Look for mutually exclusive pointers to this phenomenon of reincarnation; especially from NON-HINDU sources. There are umpteen examples, descriptions, and narrations of various people at various times in various places having near-death experiences who have vividly seen their past lives or at least events in them. There are umpteen examples of small children rambling about some obscure event or person and when researched, the events described are usually that of some calamity a person faced (in their previous life or lives). These events are corroborated in person.

Quick example: My aunt's friend is an astrophysicist at NASA. His wife was delusional for many years and he was very concerned. They are devout Catholics so they don't believe in reincarnation etc. My aunt suggested they go see a hypnotist who is known for doing hypnotic regressions. They resisted at first but somehow this man convinced his wife of attending one session. Long story short, it turned out that this woman was a Polish soldier in WWII and she was brutally murdered by the Nazis from Germany when they invaded Poland. The mental trauma she underwent apparently followed her, one can say due to her Karma, into this life. The moment she tapped into this "realization", the wife awoke and she was "cured" so to speak. How is this possible?

If a devout Hindu came running to you and said, "Reincarnation is the truth" you might laugh and then give a huge, "meh". When there are so many mutually exclusive pointers to this phenomenon, it is disingenuous to just ignore it. The least one can do is to research and read up on it more.

And you are right as far as people who have not risen above this basic level of consciousness; we cannot experience the unity consciousness and thus we are ignorant to many things including knowledge of our past lives etc.

Read Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics" for another mutually exclusive pointer regarding this topic.

B: Yet, when this apparent creation takes place, all the manifestations are NOT equal. That is why the "soul" in manifested beings is called "jivatma".

M: I just don't follow what you mean here. What are some manifestations and why are they not equal? Maybe you are saying that everybody isn't on the same plane of spiritual evolution, right?

Let me illustrate this principle with another analogy:

Let us say Joe the Plumber is an adult male. I think that's what he was last time I checked! LOL!

He is a son to his parents. He is a husband to his wife. He is a father to his children. He is a colleague to his colleagues. He is a business-owner to the community. He is a law-abiding citizen to law-enforcement. He is a dumbass to Democrats. He is the ideal "American" to the Tea Party people.

How can "one" man be so many at the same time? These are roles, yes, but they are manifestations of his energy/person/intellect/personality etc. that fit different situations, people, places, and times.

Can we dare say that God or whatever you want to call it, is more limited than Joe the Plumber?

God, according to the Vedas, is infinite; thus, his manifestations are infinite and the multiplicity we see around us is the potency of the Supreme. Yet, each "role" or manifestation is not the "same", meaning the purpose, role, and causality are all different. The essence of the "roles" (ie manifestations) are the same but the actual "roles" are not. That is the key.

If we use science and go into the atomic scale, we can say that a wooden table or a wooden chair are ultimately the "same" (ie made up of the same combinations of atomic elements in varying quantities perhaps). Yet, the table and the chair are NOT the same in that their purpose and roles are different.

B: Since the manifestations are not the "same", during this "creation", we see the multiplicity of that Supreme creative intelligence (Prakriti). Once the veil of ignorance (Avidya) is removed, we see the undifferentiated consciousness and thus become "Self-realized" or EXPERIENCE the "unity consciousness".

M: Not sure what this means if not lots of folk at different levels of spiritual revelation and a few who know the truth.

Essentially, to an enlightened person, a mound of dirt and a gold bar are one and the same. To those of us who are still conditioned by the "world" we live in, they are not. A famous example in one of the Upanishads is that the molten gold can form into a bracelet, necklace, or other ornament but at its fundamental level, it is still gold. They all have different roles to play, as mentioned above, but they are still "one" so to speak.

B: With regards to daily life and traditions/habits etc., since in this "dream" of creation not everything is the same, we cannot treat it as such; we simply do not have that ability until the ego ceases to exist.

M: I get this but why set a precedent of avoiding the poorly evolved because you yourself are poorly evolved. It sets up an excuse for personal failure. I can't have any contact with 'bad' people because I'm too weak and evolved, but someday, in a million years, I will be.

In order to evolve oneself, we must have the right surroundings and company. This is the only reason some people are shunned. This, actually, became the bane of Indian society in the last century due to misinterpretation and misapplication of Varnashrama Dharma (caste).

An example would be if you're trying to study for your exams and your roommate blasts his music really loudly, you will most likely seek a quieter place. In case of spiritual practice (Sadhana), a calm, clean, and disciplined lifestyle is required. This is another reason for vegetarianism for many Hindus. Eating meat is very detrimental to spiritual progression due to another topic that is beyond the scope of this thread.

B: Plus, all these "things", people etc. have their own purpose and reason for being here. It is like saying a banana is made of atoms and so is a steaming pile of shit, so we can eat both and we will be okay! That would be absurd right? But at the atomic level, and at the level of consciousness, not just everyone, but everything is that one Supreme Being (Brahman).

M: But isn't this just stoking the ego, saying 'I an fit to determine this or that person's real purpose and relative shitiness'?

Not sure what you mean here. I meant that in order to live a disciplined life that leads towards Self-realization, one must make distinctions and live in accordance to the Shastras (scriptures).

B: This is why Hindus see everything and everyone as "sacred". This is the reason for "Namaste" - "The Supreme in me bows to the Supreme in you".

M: Nice, but how are you going to bow to folk you want to avoid? It sounds hypocritical to me. Jesus collected such folk as a matter of course, and was crucified with criminals. Are you saying that's just because he was enlightened and didn't want to set an example for others to follow?

LOL.. we don't meet the folk we want to avoid! hahah..

But seriously, those who are realized make no distinctions at all. In fact, Shankara, a famous Hindu saint in the 8th century, prostrated in front of an "untouchable"; something unheard of even today since he was not only enlightened, but a Brahmin of the highest order.

B: Sanatana Dharma is extremely complex and that is why there are various paths, traditions, and seemingly contradictory philosophies lumped together; it is NOT a 'one-size fits all' religion. Depending on each person's spiritual and intellectual maturity, there are paths available to realize the goal.

M: This is a profound truth in my opinion in a world chuck full of only religions.

Indeed. And all the credit goes to the seers/sages of ancient India for transcending the mind and experiencing the nature of reality.

B: A man who meditates on Shiva in a cave in the Himalayas is considered a Hindu and a man who meditates on a corpse on the bank of the Ganges is also considered a Hindu. There is no "best" path. There is only the "best path for you"!

M: But is this something you or a wise teacher decides? What if such a teacher says sleep with prostitutes. I think that the path that is proper for each person is dependent on where he is blind and the blind have no idea where they are blind. But, if we are not enlightened, in my opinion, then we are blind somewhere.

Well, it doesn't quite work that way since there is no "school" you can sign up for and say, "Hey, I want a warm cup of enlightenment!" The teacher (guru) will find you once you are ready. And the path that you take is dependent on many things like your vasanas (latent tendencies), Karma, grace of God (anugraha) etc. So I have no idea whether banging hoes will make you Self-realized. If it does, let me know!
 
Last edited:

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Hindus do NOT have to accept others' so-called prophets and saints in order to practice their philosophy.

Yes, but it shames that religion when its scope is limited as you imply. Sainthood and prophet-hood has nothing to do with culture or the traditions of a religion, although the various priest classes and others will of course try to control that to their own ends. Sainthood and more broadly spirituality naturally transcends narrow confines of religions, its claimant, proponents and attackers. It is a modern necessity to recognize that in the world if you're to be taken seriously, as geographic, cultural and linguistic confines no longer hold, though of course, as you illustrate, it is certainly possible to remain insular.
 

TheDoc9

Senior member
May 26, 2006
264
0
0
Aren't Buddhism and Jainism descendants of Hinduism?

I'm sure someone knows the encyclopedia wiki-google truth to this, in any case everyone I know who is seriously into the spiritual aspects that come from Yoga considers themselves a Buddhist where I live (a major U.S. city).
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Furthermore, what does, "the one God" mean? Who said there is "one God"? You see, this is where the whole problem with religion arises; when every Tom, Dick, and Harry pontificates on philosophy that is only peripherally understood. The abrahmic idea of "one God" that is completely separate and distinct is most definitely NOT the same "God" that Hindus/Sikhs/Buddhists/Jains espouse. If you read my earlier post, you would understand that some Hindus would say there are an infinite number of Gods/Goddesses, some would say one Supreme God (Vishnu or Shiva), and others still, that only God alone exists and to think anything can exist outside that infinite consciousness is the height of ignorance and egotistic malaise. This is the antipode of what christians/muslims/jews describe as their "God".

I'm sorry to see that you're confused about the notion of One God, and think that it might mean a number of different things in Hinduism, and that that is somehow different from other interpretations. I apologize, as I seem to have assumed too much of your view and faith.
 

Baasha

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2010
1,997
20
81
Yes, but it shames that religion when its scope is limited as you imply. Sainthood and prophet-hood has nothing to do with culture or the traditions of a religion, although the various priest classes and others will of course try to control that to their own ends. Sainthood and more broadly spirituality naturally transcends narrow confines of religions, its claimant, proponents and attackers. It is a modern necessity to recognize that in the world if you're to be taken seriously, as geographic, cultural and linguistic confines no longer hold, though of course, as you illustrate, it is certainly possible to remain insular.

I am not the arbiter of Hinduism nor did I claim to be. Furthermore, the scope of Hinduism is most definitely not as myopic as the abrahamic religions, especially with regards to what you have stated.

Still, you are oblivious to the traditions of sainthood in Dharmic traditions, as you so amply illustrate in your statement.
 
Last edited:

Baasha

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2010
1,997
20
81
I'm sorry to see that you're confused about the notion of One God, and think that it might mean a number of different things in Hinduism, and that that is somehow different from other interpretations. I apologize, as I seem to have assumed too much of your view and faith.

I'm not confused about the notion of any God. It is sad that you did not even understand the gist of my statement. To think that the abrahamic interpretation of "God" is similar to that of Hinduism is not only erroneous, but completely disingenuous.

You not only assumed too much about my view and faith, you typed something you weren't even remotely aware of.

It is quite hilarious to see abrahamics pine to appear as universal as the Dharmic traditions.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,720
6,201
126
Baasha, I guess I do dismiss past lives because in my ordinary life I have never heard of or experienced any of the things you describe or met anybody who has. I do not know what past regression is or if it is real or just imagination. All kinds of far out things are possible to the human mind, in my opinion, and what folk think they mean and what they mean are hard to determine. I know there is a god part of the brain that can be stimulated that makes us feel a presence near us, but whether that is a real or an imagined presence, I can't say. And people often write books because they want to make money or push a point of view. I have developed a sort of resistance to being fired up by the opinion of others. I don't have such a need.

But the thrust of my point is still unresolved by what you say although I understand it now much better. Here is my problem:

There are folk who are enlightened and folk who aren't and the guru will find you when you are ready, but until then it would seem you know pretty much nothing, especially what path you should be on. So how, in such a state, can you really know that you shouldn't study in a noisy room, (it would develop single minded concentration), or that you should avoid certain people. Why, for example, would an enlighten Brahman bow to a lowly if not to make a point to the rest of us. Why would he set a bad example for us is it would be bad for us to do the same?

My concern is this and it applies everywhere I have ever looked. We are controlled by unconscious prejudice a sense that we know what is right. We assume this truth without introspection or knowledge that we do. We have a blind spot, an unconscious assumption we can't see that we have and never examine. We skirt around it in everything we think and do. It is our bigotry, the place inside we do not see but which we project unconsciously out into the world.

Now you spoke of how a principle was distorted into a caste system. I believe that happens because of the unconscious prejudice, the feeling that some are inferior. This is a state of mind of the ego and the purpose is to elevate the ego to a state of importance. It is built on a distinction of better and lesser, of good and evil, but these things do not exist. There is only love.

To feed them by erecting a notion that one needs purity strikes me as only part and parcel of this phenomenon. This is just my two cents.

Speaking of Poles, Basha is a Polka nickname for Barbara and Polish goes back to Sanskrit, or so I remember.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,720
6,201
126
With regard to the dialog between Baash and Madwand1 I am not smart enough to really figure it out but in seems to me there is one truth and it covers us all.

Whatever enlightenment is or whatever you want to call it, a state of unity, an awareness of the oneness of all, it strikes me as a universal experience that folk have experienced for thousands of years and the only real difference is the language we use to talk about it. When we experience something we use the allegories, allusion, metaphors, ans stories to describe is that we share with those to whom we speak. We interpret the unknown in terms of the known. An native American talks to the Great Spirit and the Catholic is visited by Mary. We are up to our eyebrows in spiritual traditions and speak from our own, it seems to me. But what is spoken of is just different words about the same thing, I think.
 

Baasha

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2010
1,997
20
81
Baasha, I guess I do dismiss past lives because in my ordinary life I have never heard of or experienced any of the things you describe or met anybody who has. I do not know what past regression is or if it is real or just imagination. All kinds of far out things are possible to the human mind, in my opinion, and what folk think they mean and what they mean are hard to determine. I know there is a god part of the brain that can be stimulated that makes us feel a presence near us, but whether that is a real or an imagined presence, I can't say. And people often write books because they want to make money or push a point of view. I have developed a sort of resistance to being fired up by the opinion of others. I don't have such a need.

I wasn't speaking with regards to you; my point was to illustrate that reincarnation, for example, is dismissed by majority of the people under the pretext of "no proof". I am saying that there is ample proof if one were to look. Whether you still dismiss it afterwards or not is your prerogative. However, to dismiss it without looking is what is disingenuous.

These things obviously are far beyond the scope of normality because they transcend the five senses as well as the mind. So to try and understand that which is beyond the mind with the mind is, according to the Vedas, impossible. Brahman is said to be "anirukta" or that which cannot be described.

This may sound ridiculous but I suppose we can agree that since neither of us are enlightened at this stage, we can neither "believe" it nor disbelieve it. That is why the Dharmic religions stress experience over "belief" and "faith" because belief by definition implies lack of substantiation. In this day and age, to simply ask someone to be satisfied with vainglorious statements is rather foolish. So what should a seeker (sadhaka) do? Well, seek! Find out the "truth" for yourself. That is the essence of it.

But the thrust of my point is still unresolved by what you say although I understand it now much better. Here is my problem:

There are folk who are enlightened and folk who aren't and the guru will find you when you are ready, but until then it would seem you know pretty much nothing, especially what path you should be on. So how, in such a state, can you really know that you shouldn't study in a noisy room, (it would develop single minded concentration), or that you should avoid certain people. Why, for example, would an enlighten Brahman bow to a lowly if not to make a point to the rest of us. Why would he set a bad example for us is it would be bad for us to do the same?

When we take birth as human beings, we have a purpose for it. This is again according to Hinduism so opinions vary widely. That purpose is to find out who you truly are. What is your essence? Who are you? This Self-search called "atma-vichara" in Sanskrit is the purpose of life. Things that help you in that direction are considered "good" and things that take you away from it are considered "bad". Of course, these distinctions are ephemeral and have no absolute meaning. Yet, in life, we have to discriminate (in the real sense of the word ) between the 'good' and 'bad'.

When you ask "how in such a state [of ignorance] can one know", it is through intuition and beyond. This is what Yoga is for; to dive into your mind to tap into the source of your being. Meditation increases one's concentration and Yoga makes the body supple. By combining this with intuition as well as your experiences and advice from elders, you can arrive at a solution that is life-affirming. This ability increases tremendously as you become more self-disciplined through meditation and Yoga.

And your point about the Brahmin bowing to an untouchable is good but that was not the purpose of that incident. It illustrates that although society conditions people according to "good" and "bad", the Ultimate Reality (Brahman) is all-pervading and thus to make any distinction is ultimately false. This is simply not practical for us "normal" folk. I suppose one can try to live like that but it would make 'regular' life extremely difficult.

My concern is this and it applies everywhere I have ever looked. We are controlled by unconscious prejudice a sense that we know what is right. We assume this truth without introspection or knowledge that we do. We have a blind spot, an unconscious assumption we can't see that we have and never examine. We skirt around it in everything we think and do. It is our bigotry, the place inside we do not see but which we project unconsciously out into the world.

Now you spoke of how a principle was distorted into a caste system. I believe that happens because of the unconscious prejudice, the feeling that some are inferior. This is a state of mind of the ego and the purpose is to elevate the ego to a state of importance. It is built on a distinction of better and lesser, of good and evil, but these things do not exist. There is only love.

Definitely agree with you there. Our ego-mind complex is so fundamental to defining who we are, anything that may threaten it is muffled immediately.

And interestingly, this is what Yoga helps us dissolve; that the illusion of separation gives rise to opposites and does not have any bearing in the long term.

To feed them by erecting a notion that one needs purity strikes me as only part and parcel of this phenomenon. This is just my two cents.

Purity, known as saucha, is one of the niyama (principle of individual discipline) in Yoga - a major school of philosophy as I had stated earlier.

This actually refers to mental and emotional purity as well (lack of anger, egoism etc.). Without this purity, it is difficult to practice Yoga properly. This is why Brahmins maintained a secluded lifestyle that involved rigorous purity and they avoided contact with those whose lifestyles were not conducive to such cleanliness.

It of course was an issue that was abused later on but the principle is still intact and is warranted. When one does not follow that lifestyle of self-discipline and moral rectitude, it is foolish of them to insist on being aloof and separate from others; this is hypocrisy. That is what happened in the last 150 years or so in India and many of the so-called "lower" castes rebelled vehemently against this discrimination. Yet, we cannot fault the system or philosophy behind it; only the abuse of it.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |