Q&A With Hari-k
What does it mean to be ‘eternal’?
Q: During yoga classes, teachers often talk about how everything, with the exception of our eternal spirit, is impermanent. Using the word ‘eternal’ implies permanence so I just want to confirm my understanding that all is impermanent except for our eternal spirit. Is this a correct understanding?
A: Yes, you’re understanding is correct: according to yoga philosophy, everything in the material world is temporary except for us. Both the Yoga-sutras and the Bhagavad-gita confirm that our existence is not dependent on the existence of our physical bodies:
“There has never been a time when I did not exist, nor one when you did not exist, nor one when all these kings did not exist; nor is there any possibility that in the future any of us shall ever cease to be.” – Bhagavad-gita 2.12
The weather changes, popular tastes in music change, and civilizations come and go over the course of time. The material bodies that we inhabit are also temporary. However, the first assertion of yoga philosophy is that we are not our bodies; we are eternal spiritual beings having a temporary material experience.
The bodies are perpetually changing. The body you’ll have when you finish reading this will not be the same body you had when you started. Our material bodies come into being, remain for a relatively brief time, and then disappear. It’s like a magician’s trick: now you see it, now you don’t.
We don’t see consciousness, either, at least not directly. What we do see is evidence of consciousness: we can perceive that others are conscious and we experience consciousness our selves but we never actually ‘see’ consciousness because consciousness is categorically different from matter and is thus beyond the range of material vision.
We speak of our bodies in the possessive: ‘my hand, my legs, my body.’ Who is the possessor? The person who resides in the body. The symptom of the presence of a person residing in a body is consciousness of one level or another.
When consciousness is absent we understand that the person is gone.
Where did they go? Since consciousness is neither a product of matter nor dependent on matter, a person who leaves one body moves on to another body in accordance with their destiny:
“Just as the wind carries aromas from their source, a person carries different conceptions of life from one body to another. Thus a person takes one kind of body and, upon leaving it, takes on another.” – Bhagavad-gita 15.8
Here’s a little more to think about in this regard: we are eternally individual people. In Vedic yoga, such as in the Yoga-sutras, we make a distinction between purusa – a conscious person and prakriti – unconscious matter.
What does it mean to be a person? It means to be conscious of one’s own individuality, to have the power to think, feel, will, and act. It means to have senses with which to experience the world and respond to the world, which implies a world and other people with whom to interact within a shared environment.
In other words, just as there is a temporary material world within which we live temporary lives in a material body, it stands to reason that there is an eternal spiritual world within which self-realized people live eternal lives in a spiritual body.
This is an important distinction between the goal of yoga described in the Yoga-sutras and the yoga of the Bhagavad-gita: in the Yoga-sutras, the person who has reached the ultimate goal experiences nothing other than their own pure consciousness. In the Bhagavad-gita, Krishna describes a relationship between himself and all beings that finds its ultimate fulfillment in his own abode:
“Yet there is another, unseen world that is eternal and transcendental to this world of manifested and unmanifested matter. When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is. Described as unmanifest and infallible, it is known as the supreme destination from which, having attained it, one never returns. That is my supreme abode.” – Bhagavad-gita 8.20-21
Having already established a clear distinction between himself and all other beings, Krishna’s description of his own ‘supreme abode’ amounts to an invitation to join him there. But to get there one has to develop an awareness of one’s original, spiritual form, of which our material bodies are a distorted reflection.
When we come to the point of residing in our true nature, we arrive at the point of realizing our true, spiritual form. So to be eternal doesn’t necessarily mean to merge into formlessness. On the contrary, we have an eternal form made of pure spiritual energy through which we experience our eternal individuality in relationship with all other individual beings and, ultimately, with the Supreme individual being, who is the sum and substance of all individual beings.
Want to learn more?
Join my online community and take part in
a free weekly webinar about the ultimate book of yoga: the Bhagavad-gita.
What Does The Bhagavad-Gita Say About Gay Marriage?
I’m often asked what traditional yoga wisdom texts have to say about homosexuality and gay marriage.
‘May all beings be happy and free’ is a traditional benediction that’s commonly recited in modern yoga classes. Given the all-inclusive nature of the benediction, one may take it for granted that yoga philosophy supports the rights of everyone – straight, gay, and otherwise – to be happy and free.
However, the Bhagavad-gita, a time-honored text of spiritual wisdom, is set in an ancient and orthodox culture. As such, one would be justified in wondering whether or not the teachings of the Gita support gay marriage.
While the specific issue of gay marriage never comes up in the Gita, a careful study of the text can reveal principles that support an inclusive, spiritually oriented society.
The Bhagavad-gita is a book about dharma. ‘Dharma’ is a complex word that connects one’s ‘essential nature’ to one’s ‘social duty’. It can also mean ‘the path of righteousness.’ To put it another way, one’s dharma is ‘the best way to respond to one’s destiny.’
The Gita teaches us that we all have two essential natures: a temporary material nature and an eternal spiritual nature. In other words, we are eternal spiritual beings who, somehow or other, have acquired temporary material identities. The practice of yoga, as described in the Gita, builds a bridge that connects our temporary identity to our eternal nature.
The best way to respond to our destiny
In the course of making his practical and philosophical arguments, Krishna consistently refers to Arjuna’s royal lineage, his martial talents, and his natural aptitude for leadership and heroism. In other words, Krishna emphasizes that Arjuna’s social duty is not an arbitrary assignment; it’s a function of genetics and fate. Arjuna’s dharma is a function of his karma: he was born that way.
The Vedic social system aligns people’s social obligations with their natural inclinations. Arjuna is naturally endowed with the essential qualities of a warrior and his social obligation is aligned with those essential qualities. Therefore we can understand that dharma, as a function of social duty, does not exist in isolation from dharma as an expression of an essential nature.
Which brings us back to our two essential natures: material and spiritual. A key difference between the two is that the former is a temporary fluctuation in the quality of consciousness and the latter is an eternal and steady state of consciousness. Krishna characterizes our material consciousness, the temporary fluctuation, as a kind of spiritual amnesia resulting in a case of mistaken identity by which we think we are male or female, black or white, gay or straight, etc.
The cure for our amnesia is to bring our temporary material identity into harmony with our eternal spiritual nature by means of a transformation of consciousness. The Gita teaches us that the best way to respond to our destiny is to optimize the temporary, relative truths of our material identity in ways that will move us in the direction of the eternal Absolute Truth and, subsequently, our eternal spiritual identity. This is the essence of a spiritual journey.
Crossing the bridge of yoga
So let’s re-frame the question: ‘how does the Gita support the spiritual journey for those who are karmically pre-disposed to have an attraction to members of the same sex?’
To find out, we can cross-reference a few relevant verses. Let’s start with this one:
“Even those who possess knowledge act according to their own nature, for everyone acts in accord with the tendencies they have acquired due to contact with the three qualities of material nature (goodness, passion, and ignorance). What will repression accomplish?” – Bg 3.33
‘Knowledge’ in the context of the Bhagavad-gita means the ability to distinguish between the spiritual self and the material body, the latter of which includes the mind and all of the psychology and behavioral tendencies associated with the mind and senses. Krishna is describing a person who is simultaneously acquainted with transcendental knowledge and yet is still affected by behavioral conditioning that arises due to contact with prakrti, material nature.
As we cross the bridge we’re building to connect our temporary identity to our eternal nature we’ll find ourselves straddling the gap between our material and spiritual identities. Since this can be a precarious position, we need a solid bridge, a firm foundation underfoot to stabilize us as we attempt to cross this gap.
A steady yoga practice grounded in both a clear understanding of our eternal spiritual nature and a compassionate acceptance of our temporary material identity is the raw material from which we build such a solid bridge.
The social function of yoga philosophy
Throughout the Gita, Krishna encourages Arjuna to act according to his nature, both spiritually and materially. Since the Gita’s teachings are universal the same must apply for any eternal spiritual being who, due to contact with the three qualities of material nature, identifies as being gay or trans, etc. in this or any other lifetime.
This brings us to the next relevant verse:
“I created the four social orders of human society, which are divided according to the qualities one acquires and the actions one performs. You should know that, although I am the creator of this system, I have no position within it, for I am eternally transcendental to such qualities and actions.” – Bg 4.13
Yoga philosophy has a social function: to provide every member of society with an opportunity to make spiritual advancement.
The social organization of yoga has four divisions: one for vision and guidance, one for protection and administration, one for production and commerce, and one for construction and support.
These four divisions are intended to work cooperatively to ensure that every member of society can live peacefully, with their needs fulfilled, and build a bridge, both individual and collective, so that everyone’s spiritual journey is supported. This is the basis for the cultural spiritualization of society.
Everyone’s primary need is the opportunity for spiritual advancement. In order to focus on our spiritual advancement we need to be peaceful. In order to be peaceful some reasonable material needs need to be met. This includes basic human rights like the right to self-determination in balance with reasonable social obligations, the right to share our lives with those we choose to share it with, access to education that matches our potential and medical care that matches our needs, and equal opportunities to work in accordance with our natural talents.
If the institutions of a society systematically deny any of these basic human rights to people based on race, gender, nationality, or any other temporary material designation then it fails to live up to the Bhagavad-gita’s standard for a society that protects and supports the progressive spiritual progress of all of its citizens.
Inalienable rights
The Bhagavad-gita is not a book of religious commandments. Krishna makes it unmistakably clear that we have free will in the matter of choosing how we respond to our destiny. It is, however, a book about what the world looks like from God’s point of view. Though not shy about establishing his omniscient position, Krishna often uses the phrase ‘in my opinion’ during the course of his dialog with Arjuna and encourages Arjuna to decide for himself what his course of action should be:
“Thus I have described to you the most confidential secret of all. Carefully consider everything that I have said and then do as you wish.” – Bg 18.63
Krishna, speaking from the position of God, confirms that freedom of self-determination in relationship to social obligation is an inalienable right that cannot be denied by any human agency. To do so would constitute an injustice.
Thus, if a government imposes restrictions on how we may respond to our destiny, such as restricting our right to choose who can visit us in the hospital when we’re sick, who is permitted to make critical decisions on our behalf when we are unable to make them for ourselves, who is qualified to inherit our assets, dispose of our liabilities, or take over legal guardianship of our children when we die, etc., then that constitutes an unreasonable imposition of state will on our divinely bestowed free will, an injustice.
Arjuna’s social obligation is to fight injustice. The Gita presents Arjuna as a role model for aspiring yogis. One can therefore reasonably argue that depriving gay people of the rights enjoyed by straight people is an injustice that ought to be opposed by anyone who aspires to follow in Arjuna’s footsteps.
Marriage as a social construct and marriage as ‘holy matrimony’
The most conspicuous right in connection with social justice and the LGBQT community is the right to be legally wed to the partner of one’s choice. This right, now confirmed in America by its highest court, touches on both the idea of marriage as a social construct and marriage as ‘holy matrimony’. The emphasis on the latter is at the heart of most religious objections to same-sex unions.
‘Holy’, as an adjective in this case, means ‘devoted to the service of God; morally or spiritually perfect; dedicated to religious purposes’. The word ‘matrimony’ has its roots in the French word matremoine, which appears around 1300 CE and is derived from the Latin word matrem – meaning ‘mother’ – monium – indicating an action, state, or condition. The assumption is that motherhood follows marriage.
In other words, the institution of marriage is meant to sanctify sexual intercourse. Heterosexual intercourse undertaken with the expectation that its natural outcome will be responsible procreation may thus be regarded as both a social duty and the fulfillment of ‘holy matrimony’ insofar as expectant couples intend to guide their offspring toward proximity with divinity as an essential part of the sacrifice known as ‘parenting’.
At no point in the Gita does Krishna repudiate this conception of marriage, which brings us to the next relevant verse:
“O best of the Bhāratas (Arjuna), among the strong I am strength that is free from passion and attachment. Within all beings, I am desire that does not conflict with the principles of religion.” – Bg 7.11
The most compelling of desires is the desire for sex in one form or another, which lends paramount importance to its sanctification for one on the path of yoga. Given that the word ‘religion’ in the context of the Gita means ‘healing by reconnection’ (in Latin, re-ligio: again, to bind together) and the word ‘yoga’ means ‘union’, the words ‘religion’ and ‘yoga’ are synonyms.
As such, the principles of religion as they pertain to sex are the same as the principle of brahmacharya in yoga: the direction of sexual energy toward a spiritual purpose.
Arjuna achieved spiritual perfection by overcoming his superficial impulse toward pacifism, embracing his unique calling as a warrior, and offering both his action and the results of his actions to the Supreme Person. Similarly, couples can achieve perfection by following the dharma of ‘holy matrimony’ and making both the act and the results of procreation a spiritual sacrifice.
Unless, of course, their can be no expectation of procreation from the act of sexual intercourse. In this case there are no results to offer, rendering the act itself un-offerable. Since the ‘principle of religion’ throughout the Gita is proximity to the Supreme Person rather than increased personal intimacy between loving couples, the spiritual content of sex between same-sex couples, however much it may be an expression of interpersonal love, comes into question: how is an expression of intimacy in the form of sex between same sex couples spiritual?
A Progressive Approach to Spiritual Life
One may just as easily ask ‘how is any sexual activity not associated with procreation spiritual?’ How many modern heterosexual couples abide by such an orthodox standard of spiritual lovemaking? Not many, I’ll bet. The potential for ‘holy matrimony’ may be present in heterosexual unions in a way that’s absent from same-sex unions but, in practice, such lofty standards are rarely aspired to.
Fortunately, for both gay and straight couples, the Bhagavad-gita is not a draconian work of inflexible edicts. On the contrary, Krishna offers a very progressive approach to spiritual life that provides a point of entry for everyone:
“Even if you are unable to practice (the regulative principles of yoga), just try to work on my behalf. By offering your actions to me you will surely attain perfection.” – Bg 12.10
Here, Krishna clearly indicates that any person who is unable to fully abide by the highest standards of the Gita’s injunctions, such as those concerned with ‘desire that does not conflict with the principles of religion”, can still engage in spiritual life as long as one is not resentful of such principles. As clearly stated in this verse, simply by working for the sake of Krishna’s mission, namely, the spiritual emancipation of all beings, one will certainly, in due course of time, be promoted to the stage of spiritual perfection.
This does not offer anyone a license for promiscuity. The constructive direction of sexual energy either by celibacy (if one is single) or principled restraint (by couples) is definitely upheld in the Gita as a fundamental requirement for substantive spiritual attainment (6.14, 8.11, and others). Monogamy within a committed relationship, irrespective of sexual orientation or gender identity, is more conducive to spiritual growth than indiscriminate or casual sex.
Language matters
The last issue is one of language: if gay couples can work towards the ideal of spiritual life within the context of a committed relationship, why must that relationship be called ‘marriage’? Why not simply divorce the social issues from the religious ones and advocate for “civil unions” for gay couples?
The answer is simple: language matters. To call the union of two straight people one thing and the union of two gay people another based exclusively on procreative potential creates the perception that there is an inherent inequality, irrespective of legal guarantees, that implicitly condones acts or attitudes of discrimination. In short, human nature ensures that ‘separate but equal’ never works.
Everyone’s marriage is different in one way or in many ways but the emotional experience of marriage is the same for one as it is for the other. The language to describe that experience should also be the same.
From the standpoint of the Bhagavad-gita, the issue of language would fall under the category of a guarantee of protection for all citizens by the social order rather than under the category of religious rituals conducted in association with a marital union. From the standpoint of the Gita’s Vedic culture, ceremonies for same-sex couples would differ from those for opposite sex couples insofar as the purpose of their respective unions would be different.
The principle, however, is one of equal protection and inclusivity. Since we do not live in a Vedic society the issue is one of proper application of principle in accordance to time, place, and circumstance.
Transcendental Inclusivity
The relevance of the Bhagavad-gita to the contemporary world is that it’s a handbook for social activism in pursuit of a non-sectarian spiritualization of modern society. The Gita’s position on such issues as gay rights and gender identity is of particular importance because love of the Supreme Person, the ultimate goal of the Gita’s teachings, is inclusive by definition: to love the Supreme Being is to love everyone because everyone is a part and parcel of the Supreme Being:
“O son of Pandu (Arjuna), having acquired this knowledge, you will never again fall under the influence of illusion, for by this knowledge you will see the shared spiritual essence of all living beings and how they all abide within me.” – Bg 4.35
Progressive spirituality is concerned with ascertaining the proper application of the Gita’s timeless teachings to contemporary life. The beauty of the Bhagavad-gita is found in the universality of its philosophical conclusion, namely, that all relative dharma-s are subordinate to one ultimate dharma: complete and fearless surrender, motivated by love, to the will of the Supreme Person.
There is no verse in the Gita where Krishna says “I support gay marriage”. The difference between religious fundamentalism and progressive spirituality is the project of ascertaining the proper application of the Gita’s timeless teachings to contemporary life. The proper application in this case rests on the understanding that any relationship that supports this objective is considered higher than one based on the pursuit of mundane religiosity, worldly prosperity, material happiness, or even liberation from material existence.
A truly spiritual society functions like a house in which the whole world can live. The Bhagavad-gita promotes a message of transcendental inclusivity in pursuit of the spiritualization of human society.
Tell me what you think
How do you think the traditional wisdom of yoga relates to the issues that affect the LGBTQ community? Please share your thoughts with me in the comments section below. Hearing from someone who can offer an experiential point of view would be especially welcome.
Why Does ‘Bhakti’ Mean Different Things to Different People?
Question: In the course of studying yoga and visiting different spiritual communities, I’ve come to find that there are a lot of different conceptions of what bhakti-yoga is and what bhakti is meant to teach us. Would you please explain why these differences exist and what those differences are?
Answer: Bhakti does indeed play different roles in different schools of yoga, according to each school’s conception of what bhakti’s place is relative to the ultimate goal of their practice.
In the Vedic tradition from within which yoga originally appears, there are three overarching categories of knowledge:
- Knowledge of relationships
- Knowledge of practices
- Knowledge of the ultimate goal
It may surprise you to learn that different schools of yoga each have different conceptions of the nature of relationships, practices, and what the ultimate goal of yoga is.
For example, a Jnana yogi who seeks to achieve liberation by merging into the Oneness of Brahman sees bhakti as a means to an end: a way to purify his or her heart in order to realize the One Absolute Reality.
A Raja yogi practices bhakti (isvara pranidhana – offering one’s life force to the Lord) in order to still the mind so that he or she can see the Supreme Consciousness within one’s heart or to experience pure consciousness devoid of any external object of awareness.
The essential ingredient of all forms of yoga
Bhakti is considered the one indispensible element in all schools of yoga, irrespective of the role that bhakti is understood to play. The practice of bhakti consists primarily of hearing and chanting mantras made up of the names of God.
There are different kinds of bhaktas, or devotees, who are defined according to their ista-devata, the particular form of the Supreme Person to whom they feel an attraction. There are Ram bhaktas, of which Hanuman is the ultimate example.
There are also Shiva bhaktas as well as devotees of various incarnations of Vishnu. In the different schools of Bhakti-yoga, bhakti is understood to be a stand-alone process that subsumes all the practices and purposes of all other forms of yoga.
Bhakti as a means to an end and an end in itself
I practice within a tradition of Krishna bhakti called Gaudiya Vaisnavism, which means devotion to Krishna in accordance with the teachings of Sri Caitanya (1486-1534). Caitanya’s disciples and followers systematized his teachings, which are based on far more ancient literatures, primarily the Srimad Bhagavatam, also known as the Bhagavat Purana. The primary practice is the chanting of the Hare Krishna mantra.
In Caitanya’s school, pure bhakti, or pure love of God, is defined as love expressed though actions that are meant solely for the pleasure of Krishna without any tinge of philosophical speculation, desire for liberation, or selfish motive of any kind.
Bhakti-yoga as a stand-alone practice for Gaudiya Vaisnavas is not just a means to an end. It is both the means to an end and the end in and of itself. Bhakti yogis practice bhakti in order to attain bhakti.
In other words, one practices love for God (sadhana bhakti) by observing rules, regulations, and rituals in order to awaken a natural state of spontaneous love for God (raganuga bhakti). Thus, developing love for Krishna is the one and only goal of bhakti.
I personally find that Sri Caitanya’s teachings about bhakti are the most comprehensive and sound, which is to say I find them to be free from internal contradictions, applicable in all relevant circumstances, and free from ulterior or selfish motives.
—— —— ——
What’s your experience of Bhakti-yoga?
How does bhakti play a role in your yoga practice? Please share your experience of devotional yoga in the comments section below. And if you have a question about bhakti-yoga, I’ll be happy to offer an answer.
Can ‘Yoga’ Mean Whatever We Want It To Mean?
Question:
I’m enrolled in a Yoga Teacher Training program. On the first day of the training the instructor asked us to share our idea of what ‘yoga’ meant to us. Everyone had their own idea about what ‘yoga’ is and what it means to them. At the end of the discussion the trainer said, ‘whatever yoga means to you is perfect’.
We all have our own experience of yoga and every book about yoga seems to describe yoga differently so, can we all just decide for ourselves what ‘yoga’ means?
Answer:
If whatever yoga means ‘to me’ is just as valid as whatever yoga means to anyone else then it seems like there really isn’t any definition for the word ‘yoga’ at all: a word that can mean whatever we want it to mean has no objective meaning. And that would make it impossible to speak about yoga in any meaningful way: without a shared meaning on which to base a conversation, each conception of yoga would exist in isolation from all others. It’s not possible to share the experience of yoga if the meaning of ‘yoga’ isn’t shared.
The reason we find a variety of definitions for yoga within the yoga tradition is that the tradition itself is composed of a variety of schools of yoga, each with its own philosophical conception of why we should practice yoga, how the practice should be performed, and what the ultimate goal of yoga practice is.
To make matters more confusing, books on yoga are often written with philosophical overlays: a philosophical point-of-view from one school is superimposed onto another school’s literature in a way that sounds like an authoritative interpretation yet differs from other equally authoritative-sounding interpretations.
So, even from a traditional perspective, if someone were to ask, ‘what is the definition of yoga?’ a reasonable reply would be, ‘according to who?’
The influence of contemporary progressive social culture on modern western yoga has made identifying an objective definition of yoga even more difficult. That’s because one feature of progressive social culture is an aversion to objective truth. Fluidity of ‘truth’, especially among younger practitioners, is seen as essential in order to ensure that everyone has a ‘safe space’ within which to practice ‘their yoga’.
All ‘personal truths’ are equally valid… until they’re not:
A popular post-modern strategy for undermining positions that threaten anyone’s ‘safe space’ is to liberate language from meaning by allowing words to mean whatever we want them to mean. This strategy effectively allows anyone to use language to create their own inviolable ‘safe space’ based on their ‘personal truth’.
The unfortunate side effect of this strategy is the elimination of language as a medium for shared meaning. The result is isolation rather than community, a retreat by everyone into their ‘personal truth’ rather than a coming together around a common cause, alienation and impersonalism rather than intimacy and connection.
The penalty for breaking the rule against invalidating my ‘personal truth’ is the invalidation of your ‘personal truth.’ Thus, if person A’s ‘personal truth’ violates person B’s ‘safe space’ then it becomes essential for person B and all of his or her supporters to shut person A down.
Which brings us back to your question: can we all decide for ourselves what ‘yoga’ means? Sure, as long as your definition of ‘yoga’ doesn’t invalidate my definition of ‘yoga’.
Two contradictory definitions can’t both be right.
But what if it does? Then what? If mutual exclusivity can’t be reconciled then two contradictory definitions can’t both be right.
Here’s a definition for ‘complicit’: wanting to be a force for good and to make a positive impact.
Here’s an alternative definition for ‘complicit’: helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way.
Which one is correct? On what basis do we decide which one is correct? Odds are, we would accept the authority of a legitimate dictionary.
But if we’re all entitled to come up with our own definition of ‘yoga’ without referencing any authority beyond our selves then what we end up with is a collection of speculative definitions based on nothing but our own preferences and biases. Odds are our definition will do little more than provide a justification for doing whatever we like – and avoiding whatever we don’t like – and calling it ‘yoga’.
This is particularly ironic given that the yoga tradition universally acknowledges attachment to likes and aversions to dislikes as obstacles to the experience of yoga. In any event, one can hardly call such a definition ‘authoritative’, especially if the defining source is a relative novice at the study and practice of yoga.
Personally, I would no more accept someone as self-authorized to decide what yoga is than I would accept someone as self-authorized to decide what brain surgery is or what cosmic radiation is or what international law is or what art is or what any other specialized form of knowledge is.
How many ways are there to climb a mountain?
If we accept the idea that words have meanings then the very least we have to do is look at the root of the Sanskrit word ‘yoga’, which is yuj; to yoke or connect two things via one linking force. From this we can understand that, on a fundamental level, the word yoga must imply the union of one thing to another thing.
When looking at the overall tradition of yoga we also find that the word ‘yoga’ is universally regarded as having two related applications: as a description of a state of being and as a process to achieve that state of being.
We can look for further commonalities in the traditional understanding of yoga, such as the ideas of living in a way that does not cause harm to others, that doesn’t involve a preoccupation with materialistic pursuits, and that allows us to develop an awareness of a changeless ‘true nature’ that lies beneath the surface of our ever-changing minds and bodies.
Thus, the word ‘yoga’ has an objective meaning in the general sense and the details of that meaning may differ according to different schools of yoga, This still leaves us with the undeniable fact that everyone has their own subjective experience of yoga. How do we take this into account when we try to define ‘yoga’?
Think of it like this: there are as many ways to climb a mountain as there are mountain climbers. Each person climbs the same mountain but each in their own way. Each person is at a different location on the mountain and there are different paths up the mountain. Some paths are long and winding and some paths are short and straight. Some paths lead around to the other side of the mountain and some lead to the top. Different paths, same mountain.
Assigning an objective meaning to the word ‘yoga’ does not invalidate everyone’s unique experience of yoga. So a better way for the Teacher Training instructor to have phrased the question would have been, “what is your experience of yoga?”
By studying traditional yoga wisdom texts and hearing, with reasonable faith, from people whose lifestyle provides evidence that they have understood and assimilated the wisdom of those texts, we can develop a personal realization of what yoga means to us without inventing a meaning based on our own ‘personal truth’.
And that’s how I recommend that you discover the meaning of yoga for yourself.