another yoga and christianity commentary

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

But, ...If Yoga is a spiritual/ritual practice by another set religion.... Is it harmless? As your bible tells you to "inter mingle" or change things with the way your god wants them to be, doesn't get his approval ;\

Example:

Satanic Orgies... They become a fad mwaha...

Oh hey guys! Lets have a freaking orgy this Sunday at church!
Not sure vicar... Is it ok?
Oh hell yea, we'll put the Lord's Prayer on in the back ground.
Awesome! I'm there man! I am soooooo freaking there.

Like I said... Harmless.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

It's worth noting that Christian meditation has been practiced since the very first, but the great centres (notably Mount Athos) have been wise enough to keep it to themselves, precisely for the reason that they know the west only too well, and because they take the practice further than it is taken in the East.

The art Meditation – which is nothing more than the art of concentration – is a preparatory stage in the Christian complex to the art of Contemplation – something which should not be undertaken without direction and not to be done lightly.

It is because every Tom Dick and Harry will immediately determine that unlike everyone else he is quite capable and equipped spiritually and (more tellingly psychologically) to undergo such practice – whilst at the same time invariably utterly oblivious to the psychodynamic risk involved – unaided and without the necessary safeguards, that the reality of the practice remains largely secret.

Of course meditation and contemplation fall far short of the simple power or prayer, but then until the west can figure out a way to offer a material benefit for a consumer society, it escapes their attentions and is largely undervalued.

The recent 'religious fads' so popular among the Hollywood Set (renowned for their ascesis and sprititual insight) says it only too well...

Thomas

Not to get sidetracked too far from the yoga discussion, but you piqued my curiousity. How can it be dangerous to meditate on God? Would we find ourselves in an Isaiahic vision of God's Holiness that we would get to close and burn up in the Sun of Righteousness? Or is there another danger?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Francis king

yoga means to yoke, or unite, and the idea is to unite with god, in theory, at least, so I don't see how its bad to do xtian yoga, myself... nice to see ur rabid fundamentalism is all encompassing, blaznfattyz..

It appears Francis, that you are the one with an attitude which is quite unfortunate. Also the term is Christian, not xtian. CR has no problem entertaining different ideas, however personal attacks will not be tolerated.

v/r

Joshua

Moderator

[Francis king]

quahom, u have said-

It appears Francis, that you are the one with an attitude which is quite unfortunate. Also the term is Christian, not xtian. CR has no problem entertaining different ideas, however personal attacks will not be tolerated.

v/r

Joshua/quahom/Moderator


please allow me to reply, quahom... conventionally, x-tian is not these days considered to be sacreligious- rather, the x denotes christ... I apologise if my use of this conventionality offends u...

as you say, personal attacks are not tolerated, yet blaznfattyz had on another thread called homosexuals bad names and told me I had a problem because I didnt believe homos were disgusting, and so now as he attacks yoga (as well as buddhism, islam and homo's, in seperate threads, and if u dont believe me, look at his/her posts) I felt compelled to typographically assault him, as I feel he has similarly assaulted me... an now u too, are closing ranks...

i would not be happy to think that homophobia or any kind of phobia is tolerated here, in this forum, and as for it being a xtian thread, I would also be very unhappy to think that xtians are really just morons/sheep/rabid fundies/ etc, and so yes, maybe I should apologise, and say, sorry blaznfattyz, for calling u a rabid fundie, but you've said things that I can't agree with, and if u want to play the "I'm a devout xtian card and I'm offended this nonentity/idiot speaks to me this way" then that's fair enough, but the church of england allows queers to be vicars, where I live, and thats how it should be...

"...they came for the jews, but I didnt say anything, as I wasn't a jew... if I said some of the things s/he has said about, say, jews, or muslims, I would be, in my civilised country, guilty of hate crime... sorry that u hate me, also, quahom, but I hate queer bashing, and buddha bashing, and mohammed bashing, and yoga bashing...

so, blazn, sorry, and quahom, sorry, and if u want to boot me, cool...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Francis!

Originally Posted by Francis king

as you say, personal attacks are not tolerated, yet blaznfattyz had on another thread called homosexuals bad names and told me I had a problem because I didnt believe homos were disgusting, and so now as he attacks yoga (as well as buddhism, islam and homo's, in seperate threads, and if u dont believe me, look at his/her posts) I felt compelled to typographically assault him, as I feel he has similarly assaulted me... an now u too, are closing ranks...

Sorry, but I have to step in here for a moment with my moderator hat on.

First, if there are specific instances where you feel something like this is true, that is, somebody "attacking" and "assaulting" other faiths or persons, there's a little red triangle thingy that allows you to notify a moderator and let's you point out what you find offensive.

Second, I follow a lot of Blazn's posts; some I agree with, some I don't. I have seen "him" point out things "he" disagrees with, just as I do. I have not seen him habitually assault anything. CR does strongly suggest tolerance...but I would like to take this moment to remind that tolerance *is not* acceptance. If one cannot voice an opposing view, what is the sense of discussion?

So, with these things in mind, I would like to ask you to pause and take a deep breath, maybe explore a little elsewhere for a bit, and come back with a fresh, calm and polite attitude. It hardly seems fitting or appropriate...complaining that another is intolerant, by demonstrating how intolerant one can be in retaliation. I seriously believe what in your opinion is intolerance, is in reality a simple case of disagreement.

Originally Posted by Francis king

i would not be happy to think that homophobia or any kind of phobia is tolerated here,

Is disagreement with the lifestyle a sign of "phobia?" If so, I must be phobic too. Yet I can discuss the matter amicably and logically, and without looking down my nose at somebody who sees the matter differently. I have had very good friends in my life that were, as you say, "queer." I love them as people, I simply disagree with their lifestyle. Does that, in your view, make me intolerant? If so, might I suggest a revisit of the whole concept of tolerance?

Originally Posted by Francis king

so, blazn, sorry, and quahom, sorry, and if u want to boot me, cool...

Oh, yeah, the martyr card doesn't get much sympathy when it's played back to back with sarcasm... So kindly take a chill pill, regroup, and come on back when you collect yourself and can discuss things in a civil manner. We'd love to see you around.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Thomas

yoga means to yoke, or unite, and the idea is to unite with god, in theory, at least, so I don't see how its bad to do xtian yoga, myself... nice to see ur rabid fundamentalism is all encompassing, blaznfattyz..

On the other hand, 'yoga' can only fully be understood within the context of its origin, which is the whole point – what yoga: Jnani, Bhaktik?. It's nice to see the West's utter disregard of the meaningful detail in full flow.

What the west excels at, which Buddhist as well as Hindu scholars are speaking out about, is its marvelous ability to trivialise something quite profound, reduce it to a commericial proposition, and render it essentially meaningless beyond personal vanity and a money-making exercise.

The assumption, for example, that Christianity is somehow 'wanting' in the idea of Divine Union, and that the 'solution' can be supplied from without, is nonsense.

To paraphrase: Christainity needs Yoga like a fish needs a bicycle.

Endnote:
On the subject of meditation – there is a significant backlash over the last few years at the western trivialisation and commercialisation of this discipline. Meanwhile many of its proponents suggest that Christian practice can be enhanced by mediation...

It's worth noting that Christian meditation has been practiced since the very first, but the great centres (notably Mount Athos) have been wise enough to keep it to themselves, precisely for the reason that they know the west only too well, and because they take the practice further than it is taken in the East.

The art Meditation – which is nothing more than the art of concentration – is a preparatory stage in the Christian complex to the art of Contemplation – something which should not be undertaken without direction and not to be done lightly.

It is because every Tom Dick and Harry will immediately determine that unlike everyone else he is quite capable and equipped spiritually and (more tellingly psychologically) to undergo such practice – whilst at the same time invariably utterly oblivious to the psychodynamic risk involved – unaided and without the necessary safeguards, that the reality of the practice remains largely secret.

Of course meditation and contemplation fall far short of the simple power or prayer, but then until the west can figure out a way to offer a material benefit for a consumer society, it escapes their attentions and is largely undervalued.

The recent 'religious fads' so popular among the Hollywood Set (renowned for their ascesis and sprititual insight) says it only too well...

Thomas

Thomas,

Is there any connection with Hesychasm and Kriya yoga?

Peace
Mark

[Zagreus]

Don't forget that there are many types of yoga. Hatha and laya yoga are probably what most people mean when they use the term, especially in the context that seems to be under discussion (or "fire") here. This is the yoga of physical exercises (`asanas,' or postures), and concerns itself largely with physical health.

Bhakti yoga is the yoga of devotion, as exemplified by Vaishnavas ("Hare Krishnas," followers of ISKCON). One might also say that large numbers of Christians essentially follow a bhakti approach, especially those who are rather zealous about their faith. This is simply my observation ... a parallel I have noticed. It applies to Islam, and other traditions as well, to a lesser extent.

To illustrate my point, here's a small portion of the Wikipedia article under `bhakti,' the section on Theory of divine grace:

A person's fate is reflected mainly in the tendencies that he has created for himself through committed actions. He has total free will to surrender to God or not. But if he surrenders to Him heart and soul, He promises that He will take care of his pure devotee. This is famously illustrated in one of Krishna's final statements to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita:

"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me.
I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear". (Bhagavad Gita 18.66)

Now this seems quite familiar, if I recall my Sunday School lessons correctly! Even something about one of the Commandments?


But other yogas also exist. Patanjali's Raja Yoga, or `kingly yoga,' is largely that of *mental disciplines*. This is not about playing twister or seeing who can attain the full lotus position. It is about the training of the mind ... something which the modern (public) schools seem to almost completely ignore, as if things will simply take care of themselves, magically somehow. Even the popular music screams "we don't need no education, we don't need no THOUGHT CONTROL."


But this is precisely what Raja Yoga sets out to provide: *thought control*. The difference might be that, even as Krishna asks of Arjuna in the bhakti approach, the `taming of the mind' is to be done voluntarily, and not imposed upon us from some kind of external authority.

Another traditional form of yoga is Karma Yoga, or the 'yoga of action.' At first glance, this might seem counter-intuitive. After all, isn't the idea in Eastern religions to *rid* oneself of karma??? Yes, that is true, but it is also understood that *every action* - and in fact, every thought and every feeling - automatically generates a certain degree of positive or negative karma. Prayer for example, of any type to any deity, would be considered as generating an overwhelmingly positive karma.


So the karma yogin simply goes about his or her daily business, seeking to generate as much positive karma (or merit) as possible, yet not for the sake of self alone. The altruistic nature of this yoga discipline is that one "simply does what is right for the sake of doing right, seeking no reward." Again, this sounds remarkably like teachings I have learned from within Christianity, perhaps even dovetailing with the Golden Rule.


A newer form of yoga than these ancient traditions is sometimes called Agni Yoga, which literally means `yoga of fire,' but which is often termed `the Teaching of Living Ethics' by its followers. One can read about it on Wikipedia, and evaluate it for oneself. This is a modern approach, and certainly does not focus on the practices of Hatha Yoga, or even the excercises of Raja Yoga. Nor is it recommended for everyone willy-nilly.


Perhaps of greatest interest to me along the lines of the discussion you have invited, Blazn, is something a family member related to me the other day. At her church, she pointed out, Yoga is being offered as a class, open to anyone regardless of belief and certainly regardless of interest in Eastern traditions. The focus is on improving one's health and well-being, on every level: physical, emotional, mental and spiritual.


This person is nearly 70 years old, and she was keen to point out that the Yoga is done sitting in a *chair*, so it is certainly not physically rigorous, though I do believe she said there is some stretching (postures, `asanas') involved. There is much more attention placed on relaxing, however, and also on learning to focus the mind and meditate.


[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']I cannot fathom how any of this would be the least bit inharmonious to a sincere Christian ... certainly not to anyone seeking inner peace and spiritual upliftment. Perhaps these are not necessarily mutually inclusive?


Ah well, the class is optional - no one is *required* to attend. No one can force us to seek greater health on varoius levels, or to better ourselves. Like a healthy diet, this too is optional.


~Zag

[Zagreus]

Apologies for the spam. My posts are eaten any time there is anything substantial in them. Let's see ... (post attempted after thread first started, sorry for the delay, it has been eaten SEVERAL times)

Don't forget that there are many types of yoga. Hatha and laya yoga are probably what most people mean when they use the term, especially in the context that seems to be under discussion (or "fire") here. This is the yoga of physical exercises (`asanas,' or postures), and concerns itself largely with physical health.

Bhakti yoga is the yoga of devotion, as exemplified by Vaishnavas ("Hare Krishnas," followers of ISKCON). One might also say that large numbers of Christians essentially follow a bhakti approach, especially those who are rather zealous about their faith. This is simply my observation ... a parallel I have noticed. It applies to Islam, and other traditions as well, to a lesser extent.


To illustrate my point, here's a small portion of the Wikipedia article under `bhakti,' the section on Theory of divine grace:

A person's fate is reflected mainly in the tendencies that he has created for himself through committed actions. He has total free will to surrender to God or not. But if he surrenders to Him heart and soul, He promises that He will take care of his pure devotee. This is famously illustrated in one of Krishna's final statements to Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita:

"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear". (Bhagavad Gita 18.66)

Now this seems quite familiar, if I recall my Sunday School lessons correctly! Even something about one of the Commandments?

But other yogas also exist. Patanjali's Raja Yoga, or `kingly yoga,' is largely that of *mental disciplines*. This is not about playing twister or seeing who can attain the full lotus position.It is about the training of the mind ... something which the modern (public) schools seem to almost completely ignore, as if things will simply take care of themselves, magically somehow. Even the popular music screams "we don't need no education, we don't need no THOUGHT CONTROL."


But this is precisely what Raja Yoga sets out to provide: *thought control*. The difference might be that, even as Krishna asks of Arjuna in the bhakti approach, the `taming of the mind' is to be done voluntarily, and not imposed upon us from some kind of external authority.

Another traditional form of yoga is Karma Yoga, or the 'yoga of action.' At first glance, this might seem counter-intuitive. After all, isn't the idea in Eastern religions to *rid* oneself of karma??? Yes, that is true, but it is also understood that *every action* - and in fact, every thought and every feeling - automatically generates a certain degree of positive or negative karma. Prayer for example, of any type to any deity, would be considered as generating an overwhelmingly positive karma.


So the karma yogin simply goes about his or her daily business, seeking to generate as much positive karma (or merit) as possible, yet not for the sake of self alone. The altruistic nature of this yoga discipline is that one "simply does what is right for the sake of doing right, seeking no reward." Again, this sounds remarkably like teachings I have learned from within Christianity, perhaps even dovetailing with the Golden Rule.


A newer form of yoga than these ancient traditions is sometimes called Agni Yoga, which literally means `yoga of fire,' but which is often termed `the Teaching of Living Ethics' by its followers. One can read about it on Wikipedia, and evaluate it for oneself. This is a modern approach, and certainly does not focus on the practices of Hatha Yoga, or even the excercises of Raja Yoga. Nor is it recommended for everyone willy-nilly.

Perhaps of greatest interest to me along the lines of the discussion you have invited, Blazn, is something a family member related to me the other day. At her church, she pointed out, Yoga is being offered as a class, open to anyone regardless of belief and certainly regardless of interest in Eastern traditions. The focus is on improving one's health and well-being, on every level: physical, emotional, mental and spiritual.

This person is nearly 70 years old, and she was keen to point out that the Yoga is done sitting in a *chair*, so it is certainly not physically rigorous, though I do believe she said there is some stretching (postures, `asanas') involved. There is much more attention placed on relaxing, however, and also on learning to focus the mind and meditate.


I cannot fathom how any of this would be the least bit inharmonious to a sincere Christian ... certainly not to anyone seeking inner peace and spiritual upliftment. Perhaps these are not necessarily mutually inclusive?


Ah well, the class is optional - no one is *required* to attend. No one can force us to seek greater health on varoius levels, or to better ourselves. Like a healthy diet, this too is optional.


Zag

[earl]

I'd have to add whenever I see a thread expressing concern whether one can mix any other ostensibly spiritual practice outside the traditional understandings with Christianity; oh for "heavens" sake earl

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Francis king

quahom, u have said-

It appears Francis, that you are the one with an attitude which is quite unfortunate. Also the term is Christian, not xtian. CR has no problem entertaining different ideas, however personal attacks will not be tolerated.

v/r

Joshua/quahom/Moderator


please allow me to reply, quahom... conventionally, x-tian is not these days considered to be sacreligious- rather, the x denotes christ... I apologise if my use of this conventionality offends u...

as you say, personal attacks are not tolerated, yet blaznfattyz had on another thread called homosexuals bad names and told me I had a problem because I didnt believe homos were disgusting, and so now as he attacks yoga (as well as buddhism, islam and homo's, in seperate threads, and if u dont believe me, look at his/her posts) I felt compelled to typographically assault him, as I feel he has similarly assaulted me... an now u too, are closing ranks...

i would not be happy to think that homophobia or any kind of phobia is tolerated here, in this forum, and as for it being a xtian thread, I would also be very unhappy to think that xtians are really just morons/sheep/rabid fundies/ etc, and so yes, maybe I should apologise, and say, sorry blaznfattyz, for calling u a rabid fundie, but you've said things that I can't agree with, and if u want to play the "I'm a devout xtian card and I'm offended this nonentity/idiot speaks to me this way" then that's fair enough, but the church of england allows queers to be vicars, where I live, and thats how it should be...

"...they came for the jews, but I didnt say anything, as I wasn't a jew... if I said some of the things s/he has said about, say, jews, or muslims, I would be, in my civilised country, guilty of hate crime... sorry that u hate me, also, quahom, but I hate queer bashing, and buddha bashing, and mohammed bashing, and yoga bashing...

so, blazn, sorry, and quahom, sorry, and if u want to boot me, cool...

No, I'd simply appreciate you calling us what we are. I'm not some superhero with an "X" in front of the moniker. It isn't X-mas or X-tian. It is what it is...Christmas and Christian. There is a signifigant meaning to the terms, not to be taken lightly. If one can't say Christ, then that is a problem I should think. That is what we are (what and who I am, and make no apologies for it).

As far as homosexuality goes, well I got news for you...it isn't accepted by mainstream Christians. Never will be. So when someone states they do not play by the politically correct rules that some wish to impose on society, because it is against their faith, others have no choice but to accept that. That isn't "Gay" bashing. It is simply expression of belief, and as such is allowed.

As far a Muhammad is concerned, well he's dead, so Christians aren't concerned. Same with Buddah. In any event they have no relevence to Christianity. Islam is at the forefront of peoples' minds today, and quite frankly, not doing so well on showing itself as a peaceful faith. Of course there is going to be talk about it. It isn't Christian, nor even close to Christ like.

Speaking of which, if one's intention is to "waterdown" Christianity to the point where it is worthless, then of course Christians are going to stand up and take offense. That isn't homophobia, nor a phobia of any other kind. It's taking a stand on what is believed to be wrong. I'm not "closing ranks" with anyone at all. You're on the Christian forum.

One can say they disagree, but that is about it.

"Rights to express one's self" is a two way street.

However, your statement as I recall was a personal attack, with no little venom...

Francis King stated:"nice to see ur rabid fundamentalism is all encompassing, blaznfattyz.."

Clearly unacceptable, and what some would call, a cheap shot. That is the focal point of my original post cautioning you. Nothing more, nothing less.

No one threatened to "boot" anyone either. I think things have been taken out of context. Like Juan said, we all need to take a chill pill...

v/r

Joshua

(oh my, this is deja vu)

[Thomas]

I'd have to add whenever I see a thread expressing concern whether one can mix any other ostensibly spiritual practice outside the traditional understandings with Christianity; oh for "heavens" sake

Hi Earl -

There's two questions here.

The one is personal preference. I, for example, practice 'sitting' as I was taught by Buddhists, and find it very comfortable ... but purely as a mental discipline and as a precursor to prayer. I do not take on the whole psychospiritual aspect ... so I don't practice Buddhist meditation, I just practice meditation as taught by masters who happened, on that occasion, to be Buddhist.

But there is an assumption that the one can 'add' to the other in the spiritual domain, and this is the error - the assumption that Christian practice is somehow deficient, or might benefit, from input from outside, is tantamount to saying it's only half a revelation, that somehow it is in principle or essence incomplete.

I doubt Buddhists would take kindly to the suggestion that Lectio Divina is a superlative cointemplative form they should embrace after they have sufficient training in meditation - and that with it Buddhist practice is enhanced or fulfilled.

So the benefit is personal, physical and psychological, which is fine as long as it does not conflict with doctrine (which embracing the ethos of Buddhism will).

However, the inclusion of such practice in a liturgical context opens onto a different dimension that is transpersonal, and here it is simply wrong, and I think every tradition would agree (with the exception, perhaps, of Hinduism – but then Buddhism can be seen as a 'reformation' of Hindu syncretism).

Thomas

[17th Angel]

*post problem.... Ingore this I can't delete it... sorry.*

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Like I said... Harmless.

lmfao.... So a satanic orgy in church with the background music of the lords prayer would be classed harmless? Wow.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

There is a signifigant meaning to the terms, not to be taken lightly. If one can't say Christ, then that is a problem I should think.

To be fair to some there is no significant meaning whatsoever... And some obviously will take it lightly... Not getting at anyone here but I ponder who's at fault? If the offense isn't offensive to the offending party.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I'd have to add whenever I see a thread expressing concern whether one can mix any other ostensibly spiritual practice outside the traditional understandings with Christianity; oh for "heavens" sake

Hi Earl -

There's two questions here.

The one is personal preference. I, for example, practice 'sitting' as I was taught by Buddhists, and find it very comfortable ... but purely as a mental discipline and as a precursor to prayer. I do not take on the whole psychospiritual aspect ... so I don't practice Buddhist meditation, I just practice meditation as taught by masters who happened, on that occasion, to be Buddhist.

But there is an assumption that the one can 'add' to the other in the spiritual domain, and this is the error - the assumption that Christian practice is somehow deficient, or might benefit, from input from outside, is tantamount to saying it's only half a revelation, that somehow it is in principle or essence incomplete.

I doubt Buddhists would take kindly to the suggestion that Lectio Divina is a superlative cointemplative form they should embrace after they have sufficient training in meditation - and that with it Buddhist practice is enhanced or fulfilled.

So the benefit is personal, physical and psychological, which is fine as long as it does not conflict with doctrine (which embracing the ethos of Buddhism will).

However, the inclusion of such practice in a liturgical context opens onto a different dimension that is transpersonal, and here it is simply wrong, and I think every tradition would agree (with the exception, perhaps, of Hinduism – but then Buddhism can be seen as a 'reformation' of Hindu syncretism).

Thomas

I certainly believe that each major religiion is a complete practice which does not necessarily "lack" anything. However, one can also creatively cross-pollinate in terms of practices, (though admittedly not so much on the level of doctrines). Take this yoga & Chrisitianity issue:

http://www.storyfest.com/beatitudes.pdf

have a good one, earl

[Thomas]

Take this yoga & Chrisitianity issue:
http://www.storyfest.com/beatitudes.pdf

Hmm ... not sure ... their definition of 'yoga' seems very suspect, made to suit their proposition ... what is jnana yoga if not the exercise of the discerning intellect?

Thomas