Celibacy

Why must one call him Master? :\

 

Others say, and I agree with them, that only through divine Grace can one attain enlightenment, or the true vision of reality.
One's own efforts are useful of course, and may help carry you nearer to that Grace.
Prayer if sincere, not the mechanical or rote kind, is always good.

 

"So a group of monks went down into some caverns to study and meditate on the Canonical scriptures. After weeks of study, they all came out crying and looked very upset after having learned that they had misread the word celibate: it actually read 'CELEBRATE'."

 

Ultimately, enlightenment has nothing to do with either effort or "divine grace" (which is still based on a form of the belief that god is a separate entity that bestows blessings on those who "deserve" them -- outmoded thinking). It is only through an individual's willingness to relinquish all forms of ego-attachment in a spirit of surrender that enlightenment is realized. There is a subtle form of effort that precipitates this realization, but it is by no means the same effort that one would exert while climbing a mountain, or the corporate ladder.

We as ego-bound beings (minus Blackened, of course, our resident avatar ) have a tendency to forget that enlightenment is our natural state of being. It is the state of ego-identification that is the abnormality.

Oh that reminds me, Blackened I have a question for you. How does your consciousness as a being who (from what I could gather from your explanation) essentially made the voluntary choice to incarnate in human form in order to facilitate the evolution of humanity differ from individuals who were born into suffering and illusion and through their own willpower realized their true nature? You said, for example, that you contain more love than perhaps any being in the universe. Isn't the realization that we are in essence infinite love just an aspect of self-realization? What is it (if anything) that distinguishes you from an individual who ascended into their present state of consciousness, rather than descended, as you apparently did?

Travis

 

That's only one limited idea of what Divine Grace might be. Frankly, I think it is an absurdity to imagine God 'thinks' as humans do. It's an example of how humans project onto their image of the Divine their own limitations. It's a common error which affects many - eg Hawking with his 'mind of God' -

Also God is without limitations so it is meaningless to say God is separate or God is just us or whatever. God is everything. And more than everything.

If you want to get the Grace, then you certainly have to relinquish attachments and ego-consciousness. But actually, it is precisely the Grace that can help in doing so. Simply by personal effort, it is extremely difficult to get rid of ego. Or make much progress towards anything resembling enlighenment.
Effort is very necessary though - aspiration and what is termed in yoga philosophy sadhana.

That's my experience and my view, and I'm not trying to 'prove' that what I say is true. People should follow what they feel to be right and see how it works out in the longer term.

 

I'm simply trying to avoid speaking in abstractions. As you have implied, divine grace could have a variety of meanings. The connotation that it has developed, however, is no doubt associated with the type of "old testament" thinking that I was alluding to.

Why do you make a distinction between grace and relinquishment? They are simply two sides of the same coin. Personal effort becomes transmuted at higher levels of consciousness. One realizes, to greater and greater degrees, that they are not the driving force behind the process of evolution in which they are immersed. The "effort" eventually becomes a simple willingness to allow oneself to be remoulded in the image of Spirit. The image of course has an infinite amount of manifestations. It reflects the unique characteristics of the vessel that's acting as a conduit for it.

I'm not trying to prove that my perspective is accurate either. I already know it is.

Travis

 

I'm speaking more of Grace from the perspective of Yoga and Hindu conceptions.
You're right to say that Grace and the relinquishment of ego etc are two sides to the same coin. What I'd say is that it is only the Grace that makes it possible.
Obviously, at a certain stage, the idea of personal effort has to go, because the idea of the separate individual has to go.
It's an interesting question this matter of personal effort. In the end perhaps we could say that all the energies of our being as humans are manifestations on different levels on One underlying energy. That again is ultimately the underlying energy of all that exists.
So the effort we seem to make as individuals is in fact only one manifestation of That.

 

Yes, that much I gathered, but Yoga and Hinduism aren't immune to the corrupting influences of religious fundamentalism.

But how do we attract grace? By making the conscious choice to relinquish ego.

Travis

 

So does that invalidate all yoga philosophy? Because some fail to understand?

It's like saying that because some science is misused for negative purposes, all science must be bad.

As to how we become open to the Grace, there are different paths. Getting rid of the ego is not at all easy though. Some think they've done so whilst they very clearly haven't.

 

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that I'm trying to invalidate all yogic philosophy? I was simply pointing out that Christianity isn't the only religion guilty of misinterpreting the nature of divine grace.

Yes, but we were discussing the apparent distinction between ego-relinquishment and divine grace. You agreed with me that they are in fact two sides of the same coin, but then proceeded to contradict yourself by saying that ego-relinquishment is dependent upon grace. I was only saying that in terms of the immediate experience of the spiritual aspirant, either could be perceived as the catalyst for the other.

Travis

 

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you had said. The thing is that all religions are guilty of the same thing, because mostly they have been taken over by people with no actual realization, or those with a limited realization at best.
Yoga as such has virtually no connection with fundamentalist type beliefs. It isn't about beliefs, but practical experience. It can be practiced by believers in many religions, such as Christianity, as it is by Benedictine monks here in the uk.
Where it has been ursurped for negative purposes is in the phoney guru phenomenon, and the general misunderstanding of what it actually is which is prevalent in western countries.

I don't think I contradicted myself - At least I see no contradiction. It is all the action of One underlying energy. The Grace helps in getting beyond the ego consciousness - One can then become aware of it and it's action.
It isn't that we have to attract it to ourselves - it is already everywhere - we have to become open to it in a conscious way. Thats an experience one can have at various levels.

 

As there are no deities for me, my explanation is more tuned to physics, which most people can understand better than holy mumbo jumbo.

It is a matter of polarity.

The ego identity is one of taking in. The senses feed this beast. This represents the masses.

The divine identity is one of outflow. The heart radiates energy. These people are rare, but you always remember an encounter with one. They can have great minds or be simple minded. But love radiates from every pore.

Might be someone close to you. Like a grandmother or a person from your childhood. Someone who honestly cared for you.

Celibacy of self, in exchange for a wider sphere of awareness..


x

 

Personally I'd say that the ego means the sense of a separative existence.

I also think that unfortunately, you overestimate the intelligence of the average person if you think they comprehend physics. The fact that so many are engrossed in precisely the 'holy mumbo jumbo' you mention should be an indicator that they're not capable of understanding very much at all.

 

Interestingly, like most spiritually-oriented explanations, this analogy can be reversed to accomodate other spiritual phenomena. For example, the ego could be considered an "outflow", because ego-identification always encompasses a degree of fixation on external conditions. Divine identity, however, is always internally oriented, because it transcends all conditionality. The greater the emphasis on the ego, the more the individual requires their life circumstances to conform to a narrow set of parameters in order to experience well-being. Conversely, the greater the realization of inherent divinity, the more the individual realizes that all well-being is internally sourced.

Travis

 

No problem, I just didn't want you to be offended unnecessarily.

Yes, agreed, which is why I found your initial comment about making a distinction between an "old testament" mentality and Hinduism strange.

Maybe you forget that there are many branches of yoga. Don't you think that there are practitioners of Bhakti yoga, for instance, that have a belief structure that is in essence nearly identical to that of a fundamentalist Christian?

Agreed, but this is only representative of Yoga in its purified form.

I could quote it for you it you'd like...

Travis

 

Because we have a dual nature as humans, we must encompass both as long as the human nature is unaware of it's true identity. Telling something it doesn't actually exist except as a extension of a higher awareness is not an easy task. The mind must have a good argument with evidence. The end result of this processing is permission. Permission to entertain the possiblity of something more. Now you can start to deploy those long range antennas you were born with. The mind says its okay.

Once this connection is made, the input/output valve functions according to need in the world. You can be ego for a few seconds, as needed, but the higher self is quick to wrestle the wheel away from the ego. It is understood that a higher calling permeates your being now. You can see wider and farther than you ever thought possible.

Your life eventually becomes an extension of what you see. And it may seem a bit odd to those who don't see as well.

You've become a true socialist. Everybody matters.



x

 

I think grace is mutch to do with setting aside differences, seeing past the ego and meeting on common ground. When you realise, for instance that ones behaviour comes from ego, you can then negate judjement ... a bit like forgiveness but it's compassion and grace and giving it is recieving it. Something like that.

 

No - those Bhaktas are not yogis, but religous followers for all they like to label themselves.

Either way, I don't think there's much point in going on with this.
As I said before, people should follow what they feel is right and see where it leads over time.

 

Bhakti simply means devotion, and Yoga means union with the divine. Do you not think it's possible to align oneself with the divine using devotional practices?

Bhakti Yoga is just as legitimate as any other Yogic branch if practiced sincerely. Actually, any authentic Christian is also a practitioner of Bhakti yoga. Distinctions between different paths become more and more nebulous as one ascends towards higher levels of consciousness.

Travis

 

I was reffering to those so called 'bhaktas' who are basically fundamentalists.

I myself practice Bhakti.