Pawel, this is an early thread of Mukunda’s that I wanted to share with you and the rest of community here. I too am a Bhakti and would like to add more to this conversation in a bit, but for now I need to be off. I hope the link is both useful and enjoyable for you.
*nichole
But we know each other in a relative manner, through our senses, our ability to talk and express our emotions and will. Thus, you standing in front of me, is an authentic personal expereince, even if I still have to know you better. In case of God, or Spirit, this is not the case, unless we believe in His presence in the person of Jesus. Yet this already presumes belief because Jesus is not walking with us today, thus it is not an authentic personal expereince. So, we are left to relate to an imaginary God. We can relate personally to such an imaginary God, and probably it is not even useless - after all, God must know our imagiations and see our strive in spite of our inability.
Sorry if it’s too personal question, please do not answer if it is. But did you have an experience of the personal relation on “Spirit-Hubert” line?
I admit that I have not. Thus, while I believe in the existence and presence of God, It is not a personal expereince. I do not have a conscious personal relationship with God or Spirit, as far as I know. My belief is based on reason rather than any personal experience of the spirit. I believe because after a very long proces of searching and seeking, I have finally come to a thought system what made me, one having a strong materialist scientific education, accept the possibility of higher truths and realities to be behind the material phenomena. It went so far that in fact it turned me into a christian, although not the usual one.
Now, even if I had spiritual experiences of the kind you ask, how would I know if indeed they are God related ? Unless, of course if we call God anything suprasensible, a common mistake. Yes, I did have suprasensible exereinces. But was God involved ? I do not know.
What do I mean … how one knows a messenger of God from God Himself ? Noone has seen the Father, Jesus said. What did he mean by that ?
Ishvarapranidhana, self surrender to God is one of the niyamas. I don’t know if that qualifies for being personal, though.
Noone has seen the Father, Jesus said. What did he mean by that ?
Possibly this: That the perceiver itself can not be perceived. For who is perceiving the perceiver that’s perceiving the perceiver?
Thank you Bentinho for your post. I have seen you other posts and l like to read them ? very clear and rich in content.
I think I know what you mean in things you said. God is underlying everything and it?s impossible to separate yourself from God. Last year I participated in Buddhist workshop on ?Stages of Meditation? by Kamalashila. Significant portion of time was devoted to explaining meaning of existence. I think I understood then meaning of the lack of ?independent existence? of the world we see (including ourselves). And I also think I understand what you mean about role of the sense of separation in context of relationship. Some time I explained that to myself like that: even if our sense of separation is illusionary our relationships are not. Everything is connected and relating to each other in some way. So, if I will artificially make some separations (like 2 people) ? their relationship is a part of the sea of relationship existing in universe. They would exist (in this dependent sense) whenever those separations were introduced or not. And such illusionary separation can always decide to love more - changing a bit this sea of relations in universe.
But I wouldn?t agree with statement that [QUOTE=Bentinho Massaro;22936] Relationship between two parts or individuals is only the story of our thoughts. [/QUOTE] Did you mean specifically that relationship is mental interpretation of the interaction between illusionary selves? I rather see relationship as general interaction at all levels of existence. Not only mental but also including physical, emotional etc. We are not fully aware of some aspects of relationships we have.
Thank you for sharing how you experience God.
[QUOTE=Techne;22937]Pawel – Thank you for your best wishes. I think this forum will demonstrate pretty clearly why there doesn’t seem to be popularity regarding Bhakti yoga – asanas are hard enough to generalize to a class of 6 or 8 people, and that’s with training in what a human body is. Our experiences of the spirit are more diverse and less apparent.
I am a practicing Catholic, and I love what yoga is doing for me too. I take my instruction regarding meditation from the church, and so far what I have learned from yoga is supportive of this decision. What you say about having a relationship with the persons of God that involves everything about you as a person makes perfect sense to me.[/QUOTE]
Its very uplifting what you said. Thank you. In general reading posts on this forum I got more optimistic about yoga as a path for me now…
[QUOTE=Hubert;22944]But we know each other in a relative manner, through our senses, our ability to talk and express our emotions and will. Thus, you standing in front of me, is an authentic personal expereince, even if I still have to know you better. In case of God, or Spirit, this is not the case, unless we believe in His presence in the person of Jesus. Yet this already presumes belief because Jesus is not walking with us today, thus it is not an authentic personal expereince. So, we are left to relate to an imaginary God. We can relate personally to such an imaginary God, and probably it is not even useless - after all, God must know our imagiations and see our strive in spite of our inability. [/QUOTE]
I agree. Fact that God is not visible is a certain obstacle to have authentic personal experience 
I’m now bit lost about the nature of God… I work now to somehow classify different views and find some common frame.
[QUOTE=Hubert;22944] Now, even if I had spiritual experiences of the kind you ask, how would I know if indeed they are God related ? Unless, of course if we call God anything suprasensible, a common mistake. Yes, I did have suprasensible exereinces. But was God involved ? I do not know. What do I mean … how one knows a messenger of God from God Himself ? Noone has seen the Father, Jesus said. What did he mean by that ?[/QUOTE]
Good questions… I try to be optimistic by remembering the testimonies of the mystics ? that once you reach some point of union with God (in personal sense ? apart from the unity that underlies all existence) it is impossible not to see and experience God. I especially liked St. John of Cross ?Dark Night of the Soul?.
I was thinking yesterday about my question. I want to write few additional thoughts to explain the reason I ask. Some time ago (when I lived in Poland) I was very involved in catholic group (sort of student group). We put great emphasis on prayer. I learned and practiced 3 types of prayer: 1. I speak to God, He listens. 2. God speaks to me, I listen. 3. We both are silent and just are together (so that would be contemplative prayer). First one was easy. I just talk to him or I just open my mind and feelings to him and let things flow. Second was difficult. It was very difficult to break through this shield of thoughts and contents in mind. And in moments I managed to do it ? there was just great silence (however I had feeling that something is happening and I just can?t follow that). All this practice gave me some feeling of connection with God. Unfortunately later I had crisis of faith and all my religious life collapsed (I still try to understand what happened). After few years of ?hanging in the air? I decided to move on and go back to my interest in meditation and yoga (which I had from childhood). So I started to practice. After some time (I don?t remember whether it was during meditation or not) one realization hit me. I felt that with meditation and practice I?m entering greater and greater spaces of existence. I had image of me walking through extremely vast meadows but I didn?t feel lost or lonely. There was something connecting and making all this vastness one thing. Then I thought, oh, that may be God/Spirit.Then I recalled my experience of prayer and wanted just to say something, to speak after long time of silence, to relate. And what hit me was how difficult for me was to do it. I felt so cold and intellectual. Like scientist investigating some experiment. It wasn?t me-you relation, but rather me-it. It! That was thing that made me sad and disturbed. I felt that God/Spirit is full of life, knowing me and always looking forward to be together and I was so cold toward it. Somehow I managed to reduce God to something less personal than me. To ?it? (and I would assume God, however defined, is much much more personal than we are). Since then I?m looking for some way to be warmer and relating toward God/Spirit (it sounds funny when I write it?). I tried to go back to ?normal? prayer but somehow it doesn?t work ? I automatically start to project images of God and all things I learned in time of Christian group and in some way it jams my mind. I just can?t clear myself from those projections and go back to this awareness from meditation (which is probably another image but maybe bit closer to reality and for sure more working for me).
So that?s the story behind the question?
You might find this link about prayer interesting.
[FONT=Times New Roman]http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/aug1/gb_interview.html[/FONT]
[quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by Bentinho Massaro
Relationship between two parts or individuals is only the story of our thoughts.
Did you mean specifically that relationship is mental interpretation of the interaction between illusionary selves? I rather see relationship as general interaction at all levels of existence. Not only mental but also including physical, emotional etc. We are not fully aware of some aspects of relationships we have.[/quote]
I am sorry if that sounded a bit harsh, what I meant was simply that relationship implies that there are two parts divided by space and time. But this is never truly the case. Even scientists are discovering these days that there is an underlying 'field' as they call it, that is non-local. It knows no distance and time. So something can happen here that immediately, without any interval, affects something on the other side of the universe, or planet.
That is a bit of how I experience this play of energy that we call phenomenal life. So in this experience, you and me both are one and the entirety of the world of phenomena is simply one, without division, time and space. So how can there be a relationship between two people in the way that we often think of relationship? It's deeper than that, more direct and immediate. All is interconnected, yet not within time and space alone. It just seems that way.
The relationship that exists only in thought, is the one where I think I am a separate individual talking to another separate individual. When we don't think these thoughts, or simply don't belief in their supposed stories and world-view, we can start to see how what we are looking at is immediately us, without space and time.
Love,
Bentinho.
A possible explanation, yes, although for me it is too abstract. I see it’s truth and yet I am longing for actual knowledge, if you know what I mean.
[quote=Bentinho Massaro;22936]
Relationship between two parts or individuals is only the story of our thoughts. Because we feel that we are over here as a body and a person, and everything else is over there, there is a relationship between me and others, or between me and the God that is in our thoughts and concepts. But beyond thought we may see that there is never something that’s separate from anything else, nor from god, except in the perception that’s rules by thought’s descriptions and concepts. We may see while free from believing in mental analysis, that God is not someone or somewhere, rather god is that in which everything appears, endures and dubsides. And it is our immediate basis. It is the fundamental ground of everything. Nothing exists out of this ground of being.
B.[/quote]
Usually, it is true what you say. But you neglect the possibility to know someone to the level that he/she, and you indeed become one. You correctly state the truth about Oneness, but you neglect the way, the journey, the process itself.
In my expereince, our ability to really empty ourselves to make room for the other one’s soul to reside in us is the measure of our ability to love and have a deeper knowledge of the other. For how could we know someone better than to let him/her live in our own soul, in first person, as if we were living in him/her ?
And I do not talk about the same Self or spirit or godly spark in us … but all what a human being can be, in soul and body, too (as thoughts and feelings and will impulses are all linked to human constituents, on many levels). I cherish the richness of human existence and it’s diversity, and the countless ways the Spirit, or Self, or God expereinces the world in all of us.
We are only able to know anyone, be it God, to the level we know ourselves. If I am a superficial extroverted soul who only is conscious of sensorial expereinces, my love and knowledge will be limited to this world I am only able to inhabit. But this is not wrong. We have to start somewhere. I pretty much doubt our ability to jump right to the top, unless one has a karma what allows it - my expereince is that most of us do not have such karma. So we live and try and sometims we succed and sometimes we don’t. And perhaps our failures are the most valuable. I pretty much believe in the freedom to err. I do believe in the way of getting there where all is indeed One, rather than accepting this Truth in a scholastic intellectual manner, and self suggesting that I have already arrived. I am not saying that you do this, I simply say, that to my self knowledge, these are the only two possibilities … and I will always chose a relative reality I am able to expereince to a theoretic Ultimate Reality. I do not reject the latter’s existence, only that I confess that I am unable to expereince it, yet.
[I]Before the eyes can see, they must be incapable of tears![/I]
[I][/I]
There are grave misconceptions about the nature of spiritual activity today. The informational boom indeed created a big chaos. One was relatively safe in the bosom of one’s tradition, even in the beginning of the XX century. Now it is no longer the case. Everything is available everywhere, but in a superficial way.
Prayers are coming from times when people still had the expereince of spiritual realities - prayer, meditation, ascetism, all it is done to contact and expereince the suprasensible. To bridge a gap - religare, religio, to relink the human being to what he once belonged.
The higher worlds are called higher for a reason. They are inhabited by spiritual entities who are much more advanced than human souls. It is normal than to assume that anyone daring to enter these worlds (lokas), must prepare him/herself for a superhuman experience. How many times, in the Bible you found the image of a human being falling to the ground in the presence of a superhuman entity ? Such experiences result in a shock of awe … and most of the time they do not meet God, but a messenger.
[SIZE=3]One must be careful in trying to be good. What I have learnt, is that everytime I wanted to be good, I only learnt about how miserable and selfish and limited I am. If one is not prepared to see what one is as a human being, form a higher perspective, one cannot transcend human condition.
God is inhuman. The spiritual worlds are inhuman. Not as opposed to human beings, but inhuman in that they are different. And one’s soul accustomed to earthly existence simply cannot enter them and in this way, it is prevented from harm. Even in death is one protected by various entities (angels, devas).
Now, if one still desires, and strives for such expereinces, one must be more prepared than an astronaut going to Mars, and more prepared than an athlete preparing for Iron Man race, and more prepared than a soldier going to the frontline. After all, all these belong to earthly human expereince - and we want to go higher.
There is no place for curiosity here. You do not go there unless you have some serious business. Careful with prayer, and what you ask, careful with meditation what you do not know how it works.
Example: the natural bonds between one’s thinking, emotional and willing nature are losen up through initiative practices. It is necessary, if one has to transcend human condition. But herein is a great danger hidden. Normally, some thoughts awake certain emotions and those, make us to act in certain ways. But if these natural bonds are severed, depending on temperament, one can end up as a dry intellectual mind with apparently no concern to emotions or actions in this world, or one might end up as an emotional slave of others, being only capable of devotion but without discernment, or one might end up totally ruled by a will of such strength that one crushes anything and anyone in one’s way.
Indeed, one needs to know all these aspects of one’s being, but without the natural bonds, one must take charge of the work formerly done unconsciously. One must learn to be free from the natural inclinations of human soul, and take them in one’s own hands. There is no more room for instinctual aversions or likes, for fleeting superficial thoughts, or for random instinctive actions. Any spiritual discipline works towards this direction. But imagine what happens. What was natural, became now your task, and your own resposnability. This comes as the price for the freedom you get. Now, if one is not aware of how these things work, and to what purpose, he might lose these natural bonds without actually having idea what to substitute them with. If one is not guided well, because at some point one loses all support received before, one can end up in terrible situations.
Hence the need for guidance - and good preparations. Yama and niyama, the commandments, especially all moral practices help a lot in developing the necessary soul qualities.
[/SIZE]
Dear Hubert,
Thank you for the reply. I found it very interesting ? but also bit confusing. I couldn?t understand your intention behind the text. As I see it now, you are giving me warning after I expressed that I felt sadness that I?m cold and intellectual toward God as I experience him. In some way, I feel you want to somehow discourage and warn me from being loving toward God or spiritual beings.
I understand reason for the warning. I never had direct experience of the ?spiritual being? (only once during meditation I saw few entities pacing slowly around me). But I understand that they can be super dangerous because of their superiority. However, as experience shows, human world is also dangerous place?
However, I don?t agree with below statement:
[QUOTE=Hubert;22968] One must be careful in trying to be good. What I have learnt, is that everytime I wanted to be good, I only learnt about how miserable and selfish and limited I am. If one is not prepared to see what one is as a human being, form a higher perspective, one cannot transcend human condition. [/QUOTE]
I mean I agree that effort of doing good results often in greater awareness of one selfishness and limitations. But for heaven?s sake, we shouldn?t let it to discourage us from doing good! World doesn?t need people being careful with love and kindness. I don?t think one needs higher perspective to bring love into world and your relationships. However stained with self-interest, it?s still love and its really welcome and needed!
[QUOTE=Hubert;22968] Indeed, one needs to know all these aspects of one’s being, but without the natural bonds, one must take charge of the work formerly done unconsciously. One must learn to be free from the natural inclinations of human soul, and take them in one’s own hands. There is no more room for instinctual aversions or likes, for fleeting superficial thoughts, or for random instinctive actions. Any spiritual discipline works towards this direction. But imagine what happens. What was natural, became now your task, and your own resposnability. This comes as the price for the freedom you get. Now, if one is not aware of how these things work, and to what purpose, he might lose these natural bonds without actually having idea what to substitute them with. If one is not guided well, because at some point one loses all support received before, one can end up in terrible situations. [/QUOTE]
Amen to that. And this is exactly what you need in order to truly love. Not in emotional sense, but rather as conscious and deep decision and action to bring good into your life and others. And by good I mean growth and happiness.
I said being careful, not restraining from doing good. I was just advising caution in the use of our good will - because any such action requires the knowledge of good, first. Good is often relative, and some even say that evil itself is nothing bout good being applied in a wrong way or time.
As about my intention … I usually lack intention, I just reflect, and try to be useful in the mean time, not just for my discussion partner, but for my own self. I do not have all figured out, I am far from it.
Try this.
This really helped my devotional practices in a time when I needed it the most.
Quote - [I]Do you have in your practice an aspect of personal relationship with God/Spirit?[/I]
Yes,spirituality and the mental aspect may be more important to me than the physical health that yoga brings.
Although I’m Agnostic so the relationship is more with Universe/Spirit.
Yoga helps, (the union thing). Meditation helps. Mindfulness helps. Diet helps. Less pain helps. Less fear helps. Open mind helps. Yada yada yada.
[I] Mother Teresa once said something like “Don’t try to do great things, but try to do small deeds with great love”. [/I]That is like “Mindfulness”. That is like being. That helps.
[I]U.G. Krishnamurti once said “Thought is a protective mechanism. It is interested in protecting itself at the expense of the living organism“.
He also said “We don’t seem to realize that it is thought that is separating us from the totality of things”.[/I]
There is a nice breeze thru the trees here this evening and there are whitecaps on the waves of Lake Superior. The air is impressive this evening even with the buzz of a few mosquitoz.
Hope you appreciate your interactions, Gil.
If we say things like “Thus, while I believe in the existence and presence of God, It is not a personal expereince. I do not have a conscious personal relationship with God or Spirit, as far as I know.” as long someone believes that how would they see GOD or have a relationship to GOD? Maybe some of our paths is to think so much that one day we drop it. Maybe it would be more accurate to say “I do not have a conscious personal relationship with God or Spirit, as far as I THINK” Hubert has a wife and kid, is that not a direct relationship with GOD/Spirit?
Buhda said. “if we could see the miracle in a single flower clealy our whole lifes would change” now change the word flower to mother, sister, child, wife. GOD is in all that I believe. some of us search on the intelectual level, for those of us on that search hopefully one day it ends. Thinking so much that one day thinking explodes and seeing reveals. GOD is everywhere and everything, beyond thinking, concepts, etc…
just some thoughts
brother Neil
[QUOTE=Pawel;22928]
More precisely: is God/Spirit a person? How it is answered in yoga philosophy?
[/QUOTE]
I kind of just skimmed over some of the other responses, and noticed that nobody has addressed this question yet, so allow me. If you look at the Yoga Sutras, 1.24 says that Isvara (the Lord) is a special [I]purusa[/I] or self. So the answer is yes, Isvara (which is as close to God as the yoga sutras gets) is a purusa, the same as you and I. But his special qualities make him different from us ordinary selves.
In my view the individual’s relationship to Isvara is a little different than the way that we are taught in Christianity. It’s not so much a conversation as it is contemplation, and insight is said to be the result.
[QUOTE=Asuri;22997]I kind of just skimmed over some of the other responses, and noticed that nobody has addressed this question yet, so allow me. If you look at the Yoga Sutras, 1.24 says that Isvara (the Lord) is a special [I]purusa[/I] or self. So the answer is yes, Isvara (which is as close to God as the yoga sutras gets) is a purusa, the same as you and I. But his special qualities make him different from us ordinary selves.
In my view the individual’s relationship to Isvara is a little different than the way that we are taught in Christianity. It’s not so much a conversation as it is contemplation, and insight is said to be the result.[/QUOTE]
Thank you, that?s very interesting. I just checked online the definition of purusha and found a sentence: “The Vedic divinities are considered to be the human mind’s interpretation of the many facets of Purusha.” Which would summarize why so many people have cognitive issues with question of relation with God.
In Christianity (especially catholic and orthodox church) contemplation is live tradition. There is distinction between discursive and contemplative prayer - and contemplative prayer is recommended to people with mystical inclination.
[quote=justwannabe;22993] Hubert has a wife and kid, is that not a direct relationship with GOD/Spirit?
[/quote]
Haha, wait and you will see the godliness of your own wife and kids. 
My young idealistic friend … thanks for sharing the fire of your passion.
Buddha said. “if we could see the miracle in a single flower clearly our whole lifes would change” now change the word flower to mother, sister, child, wife. [B]GOD is in all that I believe[/B].
To believe is one thing, to know, it is another. It is good to believe what you say, and it is the same what Christ has said, thank you for reminding me this. Perhaps if one really believes enough, one day the belief will turn into knowledge. For what is it to believe ? To act like if the object of our belief was true.
What Buddha says is practical advice towards the initiation what really makes us experience the miracle, rather than imagining it. Who is percieveing the miracle of the flower better … that who only believes in it being God’s manifested form, or that who actually expereinces God in the flower ? Like Ramana Maharshi coming out form his cave - seeing that everything is Ram ?
Far from me to belittle you, or the teachers and great souls you quote. I just oppose making God trivial. The God we talk about, is a thought God, an imaginary God, a hypotetical God of our belief. What in my case perhaps does not even qualify as belief as I am quite sure that I do not act all the time as if He was really there. Strange is this belief thing… one would say, if it is genuine, one should strive and desire it’s confirmation by actual expereince.
