Personal relationship with God in Yoga

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#25

[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.

#26

[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.

#27

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.

#28

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.

#29

[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

#30

[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?

#31

[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

#32

[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.

#33

[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?

#34

[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.

#35

[QUOTE=Pawel;23037]
So would this non-duality mean that e.g. material world is an aspect of Isvara?[/QUOTE]

I’m not an expert in the non-dual philosophies, but I believe their position is that the material world is maya, or illusion, and that reality consists of Brahman, the universal oneness. The concept of Brahman is altogether different from the concept of Isvara, which requires a little more background information to truly comprehend.

The essence of non-duality is that spirit and matter are one and the same, while dualists say that spirit and matter are fundamentally different, and equally real.

#36

If I was not believing you can do better, I would not answer.

This concept shows that for you, the human being is nothing but what goes into the earth. Or, that for you, God is just a name what can be associated with anything. The first is strict materialism, the second is either pantheism … but rather it is the most radical monism possible. Neither one is based on knowledge (aka first hand expereince) but on belief, because it sounds good, and reassuring.

#37

Giving it further thought, in a late night hour, not just for your sake, but including that too, here comes a further reasoning.

Let’s just call God, Spirit. Than, I admit, that the Spirit is present in all creation, as you say - but on various levels, and the more close we are to the dirt you mention, the less Spirit is present in it. It is normal to see how the most simple living being has quite another level of complexity than the so called inanimate matter (dirt). Thus, we must admit that even if both are created and sustained by Spirit, the former shows much more wisdom in it’s structure and organization that the latter. Now, for materialists, we need not even use this word, Spirit, let’s just use Complexity. A living being has a design, a blueprint, many functions, it is capable to react to stimuli, it reproduces and so on. And this is just an amoeba, yet. The same huge gap of complexity is present between a plant and an animal, or between an animal like a mouse, and a human being like Mozart, or Einstein. Regardless of you opinion of God being dirt , and Mozart, too, I doubt that if you had to chose what you throw into fire, you would not make a distinction. Thus, you must admit that even though dirt is also divine, it is not equal to Mozart. This is what I expect from such thinkers as you and Bentinho. If all is the same and One, divine, than treat them like it. But I bet you make similar distinctions I described all day long, all the time, naturally, without ever giving it a thought.

Without developing discernment about things like I mentioned, one will never really know anything. All is One, that is beatiful expression, and I can even accept it either as an ultimate truth, or as a belief in the organic whole of Creation/Existence. Yet, it is one thing to recognize a human being as whole, and another thing is to know how it operates, what laws, forces act in him/her, what make him/her tick. Oneness should not disappear if we direct our attention to it’s parts, but this activity of discernment is crucial towards it’s comprehension. To give an example: a healthy human being will use the whole of his/her organism without giving much attention to it. But watch how this changes when some disfunctionality appears - than he/she will be immediatly interested what happens, why, and what can be done about it. I cannot accept resigantion in thoughts like I am God, all is One, everything is allright. These are useful during relaxational meditation, or as inner believes what strenghten one’s soul, but these do not suffice in the surgery room, in the headquarters of a political party, in an architecture or a law firm, in places where relational knowledge is crucial. And I pretty much believe that the spiritual can be, and should be applied to these domains, too. I realize that scientific thought is actually alien to a mind what seeks unity because it is based on a contrary process, distinction. But my ideal is to realize Oneness not as a belief, but in the unification of various aspect of our lives, what are without a doubt distinct. This unification can happen only if we are really able to see the connections, and not just suppose them.

#38

If you have brought up this subject, knowing the circumstances of my personal life, let me answer. (I actually like when such things are discussed - this is where we cut to the bone, and take the responsability for our thoughts, opinions, and ideas)

I do not need to imagine or believe that the people close to me are God. I love them regardless of who they might be because I know them. Surely, this love is just that deep as deep is my knowledge of them. You know what is interesting ? I love them in spite of thir shortcomings … and not just that, but sometimes because of them ! Just as you love those challenged children. Knowing them one realizes that whatever limitedness they have and share with you, deep down and in their intentions and striving, they are of the same essence as myself. Do I need to call that God, or intellectualize it ? No. In fact, by doing that, I would spoil the authenticity of expereince. (Bentinho will certainly like this, if he cares to listen)
This is why many people need a “personal” relationship with God. They miss the warmth of interpersonal relationship, and it’s authenticity. Their love is human love. But human love needs to be directed towards humans, and divine love is directed towards the divine. And there is not an artificial distinction here, because the latter is able to include the former, but not otherwise. Love of wife and children is human love. When you start to love these people not because they are your wife and children, but for the people they are regardless of these relations what they have with you, you start to transcend human love (not making it inexistent, mind you, transcendence does not necessarily mean neglect or rejection, rather, completion) and grow towards divine love. Divine love for example, realizes how a certain weakness must be in one’s charcter, temperament, nature, to have that person go through the necessary life experiences, trial, and eventually come out strenghetned. Divine love accepts all, judges not on a human level but form a higher perspective, allows the freedom to err, awakes compassion, and peace through trusting good regardless of the circumstances.

You are absolutely right in what you say, I just expanded on it. Love cannot be commanded. I do not love someone because that someone is God, and by the power of the first commandment (Love thy God !). I love a person for what he/she is, without being commanded to do so. And this is just how it should be.

PS. While Love cannot be commanded, it still can be asked for, though. Thus we should not rely on instinctive love, but we may try to expand, know, deepen our love, consciously.

#39

and the more close we are to the dirt you mention, the less Spirit is present in it. It is normal to see how the most simple living being has quite another level of complexity than the so called inanimate matter (dirt). Thus, we must admit that even if both are created and sustained by Spirit, the former shows much more wisdom in it’s structure and organization that the latter
Well I must admit that I find all stones have much more wisdom to them then most humans I have met. I would say spirit is present equally everywhere. Just because we can think and reflect, should not have to mean that there is more spirit in us than in a stone right? No matter how refined, complex and developed the form is, spirit contains and permeates all without distinction. I think this is important or else we start dividing everything into levels that in fact have no borders or boundaries. And what divides? I don’t see spirit dividing anything. Just a choice our thoughts have :). And it seems to me that often the more complex we start thinking and the more refined our definitions and divisions, the more we get lost in creating a copy of the world that makes sense only in our minds. Which can be useful for some occasions, but at the end of the day the more complex the map, the less likely we will put it down and recognize the actual area we are in.

In my experience existence is rather straight to the point and natural. If something sounds like humans made it up and structured it, it is most often so.

Love,
B.

Ps. This post was not directed to you personally Hubert, just a general observation.

#40

thanks for sharing.it is useful and great for me

#41

[QUOTE=Hubert;23116]If I was not believing you can do better, I would not answer.

This concept shows that for you, the human being is nothing but what goes into the earth. Or, that for you, God is just a name what can be associated with anything. The first is strict materialism, the second is either pantheism … but rather it is the most radical monism possible. Neither one is based on knowledge (aka first hand expereince) but on belief, because it sounds good, and reassuring.[/QUOTE]
I think you have read deeper into what I mean then I intended to express.
It’s ok though :slight_smile: God is more then what is seen, more than materialism of course
based on experience, I am… so how can it not be?
my best to you brother
Neil

#42

[QUOTE=Hubert;23128]I Their love is human love. But human love needs to be directed towards humans, and divine love is directed towards the divine. And there is not an artificial distinction here, because the latter is able to include the former, but not otherwise. [/QUOTE]
Forest Gump had love for Jenny, for his momma, for his son, for bubba, lieutenant dan, etc… I could care less if he loved GOD, Believed in GOD, etc… He was a great example of simplicity, “I felt like running”. "Im not a smart man, but I know what love is"
for you hubert you may need to see the connectedness in all, maybe that is your path, to have the expeience of the Buhda, jesus, etc… and if that is your wish, I hope in my heart that you have it. If you have that seeing, knowing, will your love be greater then forest Gumps?
best to you on your path brother and thanks for the conversation
Neil

#43

[quote=Bentinho Massaro;23129]Well I must admit that I find all stones have much more wisdom to them then most humans I have met.

[/quote] Well, do you treat people like stones, or stones like human beings ? If your kid asks for bread, do you give him/her stones instead ?
My formulation was necessarily erroneus, as language what we use is the language of this world.
You make the same distinctions every day, every hour, every minute, this is how you are able to function as a human being. But you take them as granted, as normal, as natural. Not only you, and not only consciously. Your own liver works by such distinctions, and does it to your benefit.

In my experience existence is rather straight to the point and natural. If something sounds like humans made it up and structured it, it is most often so.

One must be blind to not see the wisdom expressed and working in one’s organism, and also that of the world. Human beings did not create themselves through thinking: let’s have two legs, two hands, blood vessels, muscles, bones, nerves, brain, hair, genders, and so one. These systems and differences do exist for real, we just gave them names. But naming them does not mean we created them. Surely, our descriptions are far from being able to represent the whole picture, hence the need for a more suitable tool. I do believe that truth can be expereinced in other ways, and one can never be a healer for example without being able to witness what happens in a sick human being.

Your expereince of existence being straight an natural is much more limited than you would like to admit … I call it a defence mechanism, to withdraw into one’s consciusness, and delight in it’s existence. What can be great for those meditation hours, or in a cloister, and still requires the support of relative truths, knowledge (comprehension of distinct phenomena and their relations), to be able to perform any action in the world. You, of course are shy about the latter, because you need to leave that comfy place of yours, and concern yourself with annoying details.

#44

[QUOTE=justwannabe;23142]Forest Gump had love for Jenny, for his momma, for his son, for bubba, lieutenant dan, etc… I could care less if he loved GOD, Believed in GOD, etc… He was a great example of simplicity, “I felt like running”. "Im not a smart man, but I know what love is"
for you hubert you [B]MAY[/B] need to see the connectedness in all, maybe that is your path, to have the expeience of the Buhda, jesus, etc… and if that is your wish, I hope in my heart that you have it. If you have that seeing, knowing, will your love be greater then forest Gumps?
best to you on your path brother and thanks for the conversation
Neil[/QUOTE]
the above post was meant to be MAY, not man, typo