Personal relationship with God in Yoga

[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. :slight_smile:

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.

[U]A little exercise:[/U]

To me God is Presence. To see everything as presence can come about through gradually opening up to this which is beyond our ideas of God, like you said Hubert and Justwannabe.

If you just take an object for example, you can see it in two ways:

  1. As and through the label, descriptions and form you give it, or
  2. by simply [I]acknowledging that it is present[/I] rather than elaborate on the story.

You can do this with everything, in every moment and soon you can start sensing how everything is essentially presence, your entire surroundings, every perception is made up of presence. Which also is no different from what You are.

So perhaps this is a nice challenge to try as an exercise: look at something and instead of focusing on its description and form, focus simply on the fact that it is here. Don’t even go deeper into its individual characteristics, simply come back to this Here & Now acknowledgment of its presence, its existence. Just remind yourself that it exists right here and now.

Soon you mays tart to feel and experience that presence, or existence, or being, as a field with no lines, borders and limits. It is One throughout the many different forms that seem to be here. You can actually experience that simply by acknowledging that everything exists right now, instead of focusing on the individual points and aspects/descriptions. Just acknowledge that it is present, without trying to create a sense of feeling something special in an object. Simple acknowledgment of it being here is enough after doing it consistently for some time.

Just a little ‘exercise’ to go along with the discussion :).

Love and Presence,
B.

What is a person, anyway. In an online definition, I found exclusive explanations how person equals human being. Is God a human being ?
According to justwannabe, He is. But I have my issues with this tought … I don’t remember creating the world, or my body, or my intellect … if I want to be honest, I don’t really know anything. How could I be God, than ? I can’t exclude the possibility of being God suffering from amnesia, though. If that’s the case, help me to remember.

I don’t remember creating the world, or my body, or my intellect … if I want to be honest, I don’t really know anything. How could I be God, than ?

Probably that’s because all of that - memory, knowledge, disease - belongs to phenomena. If we don’t identity with our memory as being who we are, than we can start to see beyond the self-created you. I think Justwannabe points to that You which is not limited to the thought: “I am a human being with my memory”. Where does this thought appear in after all? I think he refers to the You that’s right there when you don’t identify with all that you consider to be you…

The you that we think we are, with all our memory and thought, is not the you that created the world. Although in a sense it is exactly that you which created the world. Ironically enough. But personally I would not say god is a human being, but it is the belief you have of being a human being, that is known by, and appears within this god. You are that knower too. You are the flawless knower, even though you may be believing in the thoughts that arise about being a human being. There is no memory of creating existence because it has not been created by memory. Memory itself is part of that creation. So the creator must be beyond memory also. All that exists must have a knower. Right? All that we see must come from something that’s not seen. All that is known must come from something which is unknown, all experience must come from something beyond experience. Is it not so?

Love,
B.

[QUOTE=Hubert;23023]Haha, wait and you will see the godliness of your own wife and kids. :slight_smile:

My young idealistic friend … thanks for sharing the fire of your passion.

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.[/QUOTE]

brother hubert,
I can appreciate the intellectual side, the side that wants to know and understand. My personal goal is to lay that down. Buhda went intelectually, from what I have read, and then one day dropped it all. Nithyananda, maybe you have heard of him, walked through the gate when he left his mantra behind. More than one teacher has said, “you must leave all you know behind” Jesus said "come to God as a little child"
thanks you for your kind words
Does God know how God is, or does God just know “i am” beyond concepts and understanding. Jesus said “be still and know i am” beyond thoughts, a knowing.
and as far as wife and kids, no I am not a father or husband, however I am a school teacher of six children labeled autistic, and the thought never occurs to me that they are not perfect, whole, amazing beings. These children can push ones buttons for hours on end, there determination for something they want can be very extreme, but I dont take it personal. You have that kind of determination, may you find what you seek brother, I pray for that.
with love
Brother Neil

[QUOTE=Hubert;23026]What is a person, anyway. In an online definition, I found exclusive explanations how person equals human being. Is God a human being ?
According to justwannabe, He is. But I have my issues with this tought … I don’t remember creating the world, or my body, or my intellect … if I want to be honest, I don’t really know anything. How could I be God, than ? I can’t exclude the possibility of being God suffering from amnesia, though. If that’s the case, help me to remember.[/QUOTE]
Do i believe GOD is a human being, I believe GOD is all that is, so yes GOD is a human being, a tree, a car… and the human will die, go into the earth, and as dirt still be GOD, as the dirt, beyond the dirt. So the wife and child are GOD, imagine how life would be if we treated them as such?

[QUOTE=Bentinho Massaro;23024][U]A little exercise:[/U]

To me God is Presence. To see everything as presence can come about through gradually opening up to this which is beyond our ideas of God, like you said Hubert and Justwannabe.

If you just take an object for example, you can see it in two ways:

  1. As and through the label, descriptions and form you give it, or
  2. by simply [I]acknowledging that it is present[/I] rather than elaborate on the story.

You can do this with everything, in every moment and soon you can start sensing how everything is essentially presence, your entire surroundings, every perception is made up of presence. Which also is no different from what You are.

So perhaps this is a nice challenge to try as an exercise: look at something and instead of focusing on its description and form, focus simply on the fact that it is here. Don’t even go deeper into its individual characteristics, simply come back to this Here & Now acknowledgment of its presence, its existence. Just remind yourself that it exists right here and now.

Soon you mays tart to feel and experience that presence, or existence, or being, as a field with no lines, borders and limits. It is One throughout the many different forms that seem to be here. You can actually experience that simply by acknowledging that everything exists right now, instead of focusing on the individual points and aspects/descriptions. Just acknowledge that it is present, without trying to create a sense of feeling something special in an object. Simple acknowledgment of it being here is enough after doing it consistently for some time.

Just a little ‘exercise’ to go along with the discussion :).

Love and Presence,
B.[/QUOTE]

I can relate to this exercise
one day I was in my room, doing things and then I looked at a painting and became transfixed. how, why, cannot explain that. This painting I saw everday which I painted and by most standards would be called crapped. Somehow I saw it without words and saw deeper into it. instead of seeing an overall picture I saw deeper into the smaller parts of the picture. Without words, thoughts, just observing.
your excercise also reminds me of the ancient art of starring into a candle flame for minutes on end. It is amazing how it dances.
brother Neil

[QUOTE=Pawel;22999]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.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure that I understand your point. I can only comment on what I know. It would be a mistake to consider the Isvara of the Yoga Sutras to be a Vedic divinity. Isvara is a specific concept of a single god, similar to the Judeo-Christian belief in one god. This does not exclude the possibility of other deities or purusas who exist in a form that is higher than human form, but Isvara would have to be considered as equivalent to the Father of Christianity.

The sentence that you quote refers to a single purusa, the implication being that there is only one. This is Advaita Vedanta philosophy, which is often confused with Yoga, since it is so dominant in India. But Yoga is not a-dvaita (non-dual). You can tell from the language of the sutra:

[I]Isvara is a special purusa…[/I]
The implication is that there are many. In fact, Yoga philosophy is largely based on the Samkhya philosophy, which holds that each sentient being is an individual purusa.

A note on the spelling - purusa, which I use, is missing the diacritical mark that indicates that the “s” should have the “sh” sound.

[QUOTE=Asuri;23033]I’m not sure that I understand your point. I can only comment on what I know. It would be a mistake to consider the Isvara of the Yoga Sutras to be a Vedic divinity. Isvara is a specific concept of a single god, similar to the Judeo-Christian belief in one god. This does not exclude the possibility of other deities or purusas who exist in a form that is higher than human form, but Isvara would have to be considered as equivalent to the Father of Christianity.[/QUOTE]

I?m sorry if I?m confusing. I?m not familiar with specific terminology and differences between Vedanta and Yoga philosophy.

I liked this sentence (“The Vedic divinities are considered to be the human mind’s interpretation of the many facets of Purusha.”) because it shows that there are two things in discussion: what exists and what we perceive. We all are psychological beings perceiving reality (irrespectively how advanced is our cognition). And the content of our cognition will be always represented by structures of our cognition. So we will always see some ?facets?. And apart of our cognition there are things we perceive ? including God. I think this is the place where faith comes in: our perception will be always limited and partial and faith is in some way only connection to reality of things that are greater than us. Ironically, it looks like act of realism :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=Asuri;23033]The sentence that you quote refers to a single purusa, the implication being that there is only one. This is Advaita Vedanta philosophy, which is often confused with Yoga, since it is so dominant in India. But Yoga is not a-dvaita (non-dual). You can tell from the language of the sutra: The implication is that there are many. In fact, Yoga philosophy is largely based on the Samkhya philosophy, which holds that each sentient being is an individual purusa.[/QUOTE]

So would this non-duality mean that e.g. material world is an aspect of Isvara?

[quote=Asuri;23033] In fact, Yoga philosophy is largely based on the Samkhya philosophy, which holds that each sentient being is an individual purusa.
[/quote]
I was tought that in the ancient wisdom of India contains three main streams - these are the ones expressed in the Vedas, Samkhya, and yoga.

I always thought that Yoga is not based on any philosophy, but it is an orally transmitted parctical discipline, where the philosophic side is just complementary and not essential.