YOGA...ooer!

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Friardchips;

12806354]catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/why-is-yoga-incompatible-with-catholicism.html

‘Why is Yoga incompatible with Catholicism?

FATHER JOHN A. HARDON, S.J

Good Morning Friardchips: The article you posted in reply to my post doesn’t actually address any of the points that I had made. Also, the article was written by a priest whose views and articles caused him to eventually be to banned from teaching at Jesuit institutions. That said, and without regard to the academic viability or moral intents of the author, it would be my great pleasure to take on Fr. Hardon’s points one by one.

Yoga is incompatible with Catholicism because the best known practice of Hindu spirituality is Yoga. Inner Hinduism professes pantheism, which denies that there is only one infinite Being who created the world out of nothing.

This is incorrect. I might point out that it is perhaps this sort of mischaracterization of facts that caused Fr. Hardon to be discredited academically. The principle tenet of Hinduism is One God who created all things and while Abrahamic faiths call this God or Allah, The Hindus call it Brahman. Brahman is also part of a Trinity, and was said by Hindus to be so long before Christianity had the idea. Long before Christianity as a matter of fact. The difference between Hinduism and Christianity is that while many Christians have been taught to see God as being separate from us and accessible only through institutions, rites and ritual, Hindus believe that God is in all things, present everywhere and totally accessible. Many Christians believe this as well. The statement by Fr Hardon that Hinduism denies one infinite being is patently false.

This pantheistic Hinduism says to the multitude of uncultured believers who follow the ways of the gods that they will receive the reward of the gods. They will have brief tastes of heaven between successive rebirths on earth. But they will never be delivered from the wheel of existence with its illusory lives and deaths until they realize that only God exists and all else is illusion (Maya). **To achieve this liberation the principal way is by means of concentration and self control (yoga). **

Here Fr. Hardon characterizes one of the worlds great cultures as “uncultured.” I will call it was it is. Bigotry.

Indian spirituality is perhaps best known by the practice of yoga, derived from the root yuj to unite or yoke, which in context means union with the Absolute. Numerous stages are distinguished in the upward progress toward the supreme end of identification: by means of knowledge with the deity; the practice of moral virtues and observance of ethical rules; bodily postures; control of internal and external senses; concentration of memory and meditationfinally terminating in total absorption (samadhi), when the seer stands in his own nature.

You are welcome to point out in your own words (if you would) what the problem with any of these activities might be.

Although the psychic element is far more important in yoga than the body, the latter is more characteristic of this method of Hindu liberation. Its purpose is to secure the best disposition of body for the purpose of meditation. The practice begins with a simple device for deep and slow breathing.

Again, you are welcome to point out in your own words (if you would) what the problem with any of these activities might be. Catholics shouldn’t meditate or breathe?

Stopping the right nostril with the thumb, through the left nostril fill in air, according to capacity. Then without any interval, throw the air out through the right nostril, eject through the left, according to capacity. Practicing this three or five times at four hours of the day, before dawn, during midday, in the evening, and at midnight, in fifteen days or a month purity of the nerves is attained.

Please elaborate if you would on how purity of nerves is problematic for Catholics.

After such preliminary exercises, more complicated practices are undertaken, but not without the guidance of a professional yogin, called guru. The meditative phase begins with fixing the mind on one object, which may be anything whatsoever, the sphere of the navel, the lotus of the heart, the light of the brain, the tip of the nose, the tip of the tongue, and such like parts of the body or also God, who on Hindu terms is the only real being who exists.

Anything whatsoever. Like Jesus, or Mary, or a toaster oven. In your own words, how is this problematic?

Gradually by sheer concentration of attention; the mind reaches a state of trance, where all mental activity stops and the consciousness rests in itself. The state of samadhi is the culmination of yoga and beyond it lies release. The life of the soul is not destroyed but is reduced to its unconscious and permanent essence.

Trance is a pretty universal and common component of spiritual attainment and is not unknown to Catholicism. It is often associated with those who have attained a high level of spirituality.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

And on the subject if the Exodus yesterday, today’s reading at Mass happens to be…

'Exodus 20: 1-17:

God spoke all these words. He said, "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

You shall have no gods except me.

You shall not make yourself a carved image or likeness of anything in Heaven or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.

For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God and I punish the father’s fault in the sons, the grandsons, and the great-grandsons of those who hate me; but I show kindness to those who love me and keep my commandments.

You shall not utter the name of the Lord your God to misuse it, for the Lord will not leave unpunished the man who utters his name to misuse it."’

God bless.

Good morning again Friadchips. Thank you - I went to mass yesterday and heard the reading. Can you elaborate in clear and specific terms how you see this as tying into our discussion?

All the best,
Gary

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Please elaborate if you would on how purity of nerves is problematic for Catholics.

Greetings, I think the problem many might see, and the CDF summarized in the document on “New Age” is that we could begin to think that we can manipulate our “God” experience through techniques and that spiritual advancement is then a matter of technique, practice and self accomplishment.

But that can be a danger even within our own tradition as in thinking that if we pray more rosaries, go to more masses, and have more devotions than the next person, then we are more spiritual.

The important thing is always to rememner that relationship is more important than technique and that God’s grace is superior to our own efforts.

That being said, there is a lot we can do to nurture our receptivity to God’s grace. There are a lot of God given gifts to assist our physical, emotional and spiritual well being. Many are innate, transcending time and culture. I am thinking of Romans 1:20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. The human body being of the things he has made it, only makes sense that since the dawn of consciousness the wisest of humans have found ways to bring their minds and bodies to the kind of inner silence where God’s eternal power and deity can be clearly perceived.

 

[SyroMalankara]

This is incorrect. I might point out that it is perhaps this sort of mischaracterization of facts that caused Fr. Hardon to be discredited academically. The principle tenet of Hinduism is One God who created all things and while Abrahamic faiths call this God or Allah, The Hindus call it Brahman. Brahman is also part of a Trinity, and was said by Hindus to be so long before Christianity had the idea. Long before Christianity as a matter of fact. The difference between Hinduism and Christianity is that while many Christians have been taught to see God as being separate from us and accessible only through institutions, rites and ritual, Hindus believe that God is in all things, present everywhere and totally accessible. Many Christians believe this as well. The statement by Fr Hardon that Hinduism denies one infinite being is patently false.

not entirely accurate, Hinduism denies very little. The idea that Hinduism is one concept or faith is a mistake. The beliefs, practices,rituals, gods, ideas all differ so much so that they can legitimately be called different religions.

Trance is a pretty universal and common component of spiritual attainment and is not unknown to Catholicism. It is often associated with those who have attained a high level of spirituality.

Also associated with delusion.a very fine line.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Syro:

Not entirely accurate, Hinduism denies very little. The idea that Hinduism is one concept or faith is a mistake. The beliefs, practices,rituals, gods, ideas all differ so much so that they can legitimately be called different religions

Good Afternoon Syro: I had pointed that out about 20 posts ago. However, the overriding principle of most Vedic philosophy is Upanishadic.

Also associated with delusion.a very fine line.

To say what is delusion and what is not is also a fine line. When one person has it, it’s called a delusion. When a few have it, it is often called a cult. When many have it, it’s called a religion. Few belief systems are practical with regards to association with observable reality.

All the best,
Gary

 

[SyroMalankara]

From Syro:

Good Afternoon Syro: I had pointed that out about 20 posts ago. However, the overriding principle of most Vedic philosophy is Upanishadic.

Then there’s this: elephantjournal.com/2010/05/why-does-deepak-chopra-agree-with-hindu-nationalists/

To say what is delusion and what is not is also a fine line. When one person has it, it’s called a delusion. When a few have it, it is often called a cult. When many have it, it’s called a religion. Few belief systems are practical with regards to association with observable reality.

Generically sure. However, as Catholics, we have a standard by which we judge reality vs delusion. Its not arbitrary.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Then there’s this: elephantjournal.com/2010/05/why-does-deepak-chopra-agree-with-hindu-nationalists/

Thanks for that. Very interesting

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Generically sure. However, as Catholics, we have a standard by which we judge reality vs delusion. Its not arbitrary.

Good Morning Syro: It’s certainly not arbitrary. However, the standards by which we judge reality v delusion are socially and institutionally engineered and heavily reinforced. Not much of what we believe rationalizes well with observable reality.

All the best,
Gary

 

[SyroMalankara]

Good Morning Syro: It’s certainly not arbitrary. However, the standards by which we judge reality v delusion are socially and institutionally engineered and heavily reinforced. Not much of what we believe rationalizes well with observable reality.

All the best,
Gary

This line of reasoning can easily lend itself to relativism, “my truth” vs. “your truth”, not “The Truth”. Catholicism espouses a “The Truth” view, while Hinduism does not.

 

[friardchips]

Hi. Not spending so much time on here now answering all posts so leaving it amongst yourselves.

I do think we tend to ignore the Bible and look outside of it for answers when it is all there. Sure, R.Cs do not practice sola scriptura, and we need to build bridges without prejudice, going into the world yet not of the world, but the R.C Church already boasts a treasury of meditative techniques.

Yes, there are stories which correlate with Christianity in non-Christian Eastern religions, as if tasters, or preludes to it, but reincarnation belief and belief in any deity or avatars other than the Holy Trinity are still there, so treading with care surely has to be advised.

uscatholic.org/articles/201304/so-what-about-yoga-practice-27153

'Ten ways to determine if a practice is compatible with your Catholic faith.

Just because a spiritual practice comes from outside the Christian tradition doesn’t automatically mean it conflicts with church teaching—nor does it automatically mean the opposite. If you’re not so sure about your son’s meditation practice, your friend’s devotion to reiki, or if you can, in good faith, take that yoga class, your goal should be to wisely discern the answer.

In 2003 the Vatican released a provisional document titled Jesus Christ: The Bearer of the Water of Life: A Christian Reflection on the ‘New Age’ by the Working Group of New Religious Movements. The group (composed of staff members of the Pontifical Council for Culture, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) acknowledges that “It can be hard to distinguish between things which are innocuous and those which really need to be questioned.”

The term “New Age” is a bit of a catch-all in this document; it lumps together practices such as acupuncture, Zen meditation, yoga, homeopathy, transpersonal psychology, transcendental meditation, Feng Shui, crystal healing, and astrology. “The mere use of the term ‘New Age’ in itself means little, if anything,” the authors write. “The relationship of the person, group, practice, or commodity to the central tenets of Christianity is what counts.”

Here are 10 questions the document presents to help Catholics evaluate whether a particular spiritual practice is acceptable.

1. Is God a being with whom we have a relationship or something to be used or a force to be harnessed?

“The New Age god is an impersonal energy, really a particular extension or component of the cosmos… the Christian understanding of God … is in himself personal, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

1. Is there just one Jesus Christ, or are there thousands of Christs?

“Jesus Christ is often presented in New Age literature as one among many wise men, or initiates, or avatars, whereas in Christian tradition he is the Son of God.”

1. The human being: Is there one universal being or are there many individuals?

“New Age is thinking based on totalitarian unity… the Christian approach grows out of scriptural teachings about human nature; men and women are created in God’s image and likeness.”

1. Do we save ourselves or is salvation a free gift from God?

“In New Age thinking, key words are self-fulfillment and self-realization, self-redemption… [For Christians] the way to salvation is not found simply in a self-induced transformation of consciousness, but in a liberation from sin and its consequences…It necessarily moves us toward loving solidarity with our neighbor in need.”

1. Do we invent truth or do we embrace it?

“New Age truth is a matter of finding one’s own truth in accordance with the feel-good factor. Evaluating religion and ethical questions is obviously relative to one’s own feelings and experiences.”

1. Prayer and meditation: Are we talking to ourselves or to God?

In New Age teaching “techniques for going deeper into one’s own soul are ultimately an appeal to one’s own ability to reach the divine, or even to become the divine.” Christian prayer, however, has a “double orientation which involves introspection but is essentially also a meeting with God … Christian mysticism is essentially a dialogue which ‘implies an attitude of conversion, a flight from the “self” to the “you” of God.’ ”

1. Are we tempted to deny the reality of sin or do we accept that there is such a thing?

“In New Age there is no real concept of sin, but rather one of imperfect knowledge…

[The Catechism of the Catholic Church says] ‘Sin is an abuse of freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another… It is a failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods… Sin is thus ‘love of oneself even to contempt of God.”’”

1. Are we encouraged to reject or accept suffering and death?

“Some New Age writers view suffering as self-imposed, or as bad karma, or at least as a failure to harness one’s own resources. Others concentrate on methods of achieving success and wealth… Christians know that [in the words of John Paul II] ‘In bringing about the redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of redemption.’”

1. Is social commitment something shirked or positively sought after?

“The fusion of individuals into the cosmic self, the relativisation or abolition of difference and opposition in a cosmic harmony, is unacceptable to Christianity… A genuine Christian searches for unity in the capacity and freedom of the other to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the gift of love.”

1. Is our future in the stars or do we help to construct it?

Christians “are ready for the last days when Christ will come again; their New Age began 2,000 years ago, with Christ.”’

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Just because a spiritual practice comes from outside the Christian tradition doesn’t automatically mean it conflicts with church teaching—nor does it automatically mean the opposite.

This sounds like a change in what you have been saying.

 

[friardchips]

Hi. Thanks for the dialogue!

Edited, and reposted the following:

We tend to ignore the Bible and look outside for answers when it is all there. We don’t practice sola scriptura, we need to build bridges not prejudice, going into the world yet not of the world to evangelise; yet, for prayer, the R.C Church boasts a treasury of meditative techniques. Pope F said not to seek spiritual answers in Yoga, so that for me is enough. Religious relativism is a danger, as Pope B also stated.

There are stories which correlate with Christianity in non-Christian Eastern religions, as if tasters, or preludes to it, but belief in reincarnation and in other deities / avatars rather than the Holy Trinity are still there, so treading with care has to be advised.

uscatholic.org/articles/201304/so-what-about-yoga-practice-27153

'Ten ways to determine if a practice is compatible with your Catholic faith.

Just because a spiritual practice comes from outside the Christian tradition doesn’t automatically mean it conflicts with church teaching—nor does it automatically mean the opposite. If you’re not so sure about your son’s meditation practice, your friend’s devotion to reiki, or if you can, in good faith, take that yoga class, your goal should be to wisely discern the answer.

In 2003 the Vatican released a provisional document titled Jesus Christ: The Bearer of the Water of Life: A Christian Reflection on the ‘New Age’ by the Working Group of New Religious Movements. The group (composed of staff members of the Pontifical Council for Culture, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) acknowledges that “It can be hard to distinguish between things which are innocuous and those which really need to be questioned.”

The term “New Age” is a bit of a catch-all in this document; it lumps together practices such as acupuncture, Zen meditation, yoga, homeopathy, transpersonal psychology, transcendental meditation, Feng Shui, crystal healing, and astrology. “The mere use of the term ‘New Age’ in itself means little, if anything,” the authors write. “The relationship of the person, group, practice, or commodity to the central tenets of Christianity is what counts.”

Here are 10 questions the document presents to help Catholics evaluate whether a particular spiritual practice is acceptable.

1. Is God a being with whom we have a relationship or something to be used or a force to be harnessed?

“The New Age god is an impersonal energy, really a particular extension or component of the cosmos… the Christian understanding of God … is in himself personal, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

1. Is there just one Jesus Christ, or are there thousands of Christs?

“Jesus Christ is often presented in New Age literature as one among many wise men, or initiates, or avatars, whereas in Christian tradition he is the Son of God.”

1. The human being: Is there one universal being or are there many individuals?

“New Age is thinking based on totalitarian unity… the Christian approach grows out of scriptural teachings about human nature; men and women are created in God’s image and likeness.”

1. Do we save ourselves or is salvation a free gift from God?

“In New Age thinking, key words are self-fulfillment and self-realization, self-redemption… [For Christians] the way to salvation is not found simply in a self-induced transformation of consciousness, but in a liberation from sin and its consequences…It necessarily moves us toward loving solidarity with our neighbor in need.”

1. Do we invent truth or do we embrace it?

“New Age truth is a matter of finding one’s own truth in accordance with the feel-good factor. Evaluating religion and ethical questions is obviously relative to one’s own feelings and experiences.”

1. Prayer and meditation: Are we talking to ourselves or to God?

In New Age teaching “techniques for going deeper into one’s own soul are ultimately an appeal to one’s own ability to reach the divine, or even to become the divine.” Christian prayer, however, has a “double orientation which involves introspection but is essentially also a meeting with God … Christian mysticism is essentially a dialogue which ‘implies an attitude of conversion, a flight from the “self” to the “you” of God.’ ”

1. Are we tempted to deny the reality of sin or do we accept that there is such a thing?

“In New Age there is no real concept of sin, but rather one of imperfect knowledge…

[The Catechism of the Catholic Church says] ‘Sin is an abuse of freedom that God gives to created persons so that they are capable of loving him and loving one another… It is a failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods… Sin is thus ‘love of oneself even to contempt of God.”’”

1. Are we encouraged to reject or accept suffering and death?

“Some New Age writers view suffering as self-imposed, or as bad karma, or at least as a failure to harness one’s own resources. Others concentrate on methods of achieving success and wealth… Christians know that [in the words of John Paul II] ‘In bringing about the redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of redemption.’”

1. Is social commitment something shirked or positively sought after?

“The fusion of individuals into the cosmic self, the relativisation or abolition of difference and opposition in a cosmic harmony, is unacceptable to Christianity… A genuine Christian searches for unity in the capacity and freedom of the other to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the gift of love.”

1. Is our future in the stars or do we help to construct it?

Christians “are ready for the last days when Christ will come again; their New Age began 2,000 years ago, with Christ.”’

 

[friardchips]

Deleted.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

This line of reasoning can easily lend itself to relativism, “my truth” vs. “your truth”, not “The Truth”.

Good Evening Syro: terms like relativism get thrown around on this website like it’s bad word. In truth, it’s just a scary word to institutions who must have a singular profound truth to put forth. Relativism is also problematic to those who need to think that the truth they have bought into is one that makes them feel like they have it all figured out and that the world is in it’s place. Truth is, no one knows what all of this ( the world) is - not scientists, not Newsweek, not CNN, the judicial and legislative branches, the executive branch, the parliament, the faculty at Princeton or any church.

Catholicism espouses a “The Truth” view, while Hinduism does not

It is my opinion, and just my opinion mind you, that the only truth that matters is the felt presence of immediate experience. It is not up to anyone to tell another person what their experiences are, how they should feel, what they do or do not mean. If we let an institution or other people do that, then we have bought into someone else’s program rather than taking out lives to be what we personally make them out to be. My life is not up sale to anyone’s ideology or position, and truth, well that is indeed often very relative.

With regard to Hinduism, with without regard to what sect, there is one overriding truth that it proposes, but I am not here to promote Hinduism.

All the best,
Gary

 

[SyroMalankara]

It is my opinion, and just my opinion mind you, that the only truth that matters is the felt presence of immediate experience. It is not up to anyone to tell another person what their experiences are, how they should feel, what they do or do not mean. If we let an institution or other people do that, then we have bought into someone else’s program rather than taking out lives to be what we personally make them out to be. My life is not up sale to anyone’s ideology or position, and truth, well that is indeed often very relative.

As most evidence based science can attest, individual experience is probably the worst, most unreliable indicator of actual reality. As Catholics, the only program we know is the one that another person brought us - He happens to be the Divine Person we call Jesus.

 

[AnnieHall]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1500093.htm

Not sure if this has been posted already, but this gave me a little more context for the original quote from Pope Francis. It doesn’t strike me as insulting to yoga or anything else mentioned, to me it sounds more like the things listed are simply spiritual tools for different people from different backgrounds, and none of them alone will be able to provide us the religious and spiritual growth we’re looking for.

I don’t think Catholics are going to skip out on Mass or stop reading the Bible or anything else that is important to their religion and try to replace it with yoga. I see it at most as something that’s added in addition, maybe a quiet time or a break from a busy schedule, maybe a way to find relief from pain, maybe a way to get a good workout in. … different for everyone, much like everything in life, but I don’t see anything in the Pope’s statement that makes me think that doing yoga is wrong, as long as you’re not trying to use it as your soul source of spirituality.

 

[christofirst]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1500093.htm

Not sure if this has been posted already, but this gave me a little more context for the original quote from Pope Francis. It doesn’t strike me as insulting to yoga or anything else mentioned, to me it sounds more like the things listed are simply spiritual tools for different people from different backgrounds, and none of them alone will be able to provide us the religious and spiritual growth we’re looking for.

I don’t think Catholics are going to skip out on Mass or stop reading the Bible or anything else that is important to their religion and try to replace it with yoga. I see it at most as something that’s added in addition, maybe a quiet time or a break from a busy schedule, maybe a way to find relief from pain, maybe a way to get a good workout in. … different for everyone, much like everything in life, but I don’t see anything in the Pope’s statement that makes me think that doing yoga is wrong, as long as you’re not trying to use it as your soul source of spirituality.

Yes. The Holy Father mentions yoga and the Catechism together in the same sentence to make this point. Obviously, he is not discouraging our use of the Catechism, and so we can reasonably infer that he is not condemning yoga here either. His point, as you have correctly shown, is that each can serve a useful purpose, but that the isolated study of any discipline is insufficient to open us to God’s love. We must move beyond study and discipline, and put our faith into practice.

The idea that by doing yoga stretches I am somehow invoking a Hindu deity or demon is repulsive and wrong. If I wish you a good Saturday morning, for example, am I invoking the Roman god Saturn? Of course not! We often take what is useful from other cultures and incorporate them into our own. If the original meaning of these things conflicts with our Christian faith, we leave that old meaning behind and keep what is good, like identifying the days of the week, or maintaining our health.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

As most evidence based science can attest, individual experience is probably the worst, most unreliable indicator of actual reality. .

And yet it is the only experience we will ever know. Your day to day experiences are the only experiences you have. When someone tells you the way the world is and you accept what they say, that too is your experience. When you believe in something and when you don’t believe in something, whether it was told to you by others or you came upon it on your own, that is your experience too. When you say that science tells you that your experience is unreliable, well, you have simply bought into someone else’s dogma - the dogma of some scientists, who in turn are only reacting to their own experience, which in their own words is unreliable. And your experience is the experience of believing them, in spite of what you can see.

All the best,
Gary

 

[friardchips]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1500093.htm

Not sure if this has been posted already, but this gave me a little more context for the original quote from Pope Francis. It doesn’t strike me as insulting to yoga or anything else mentioned, to me it sounds more like the things listed are simply spiritual tools for different people from different backgrounds, and none of them alone will be able to provide us the religious and spiritual growth we’re looking for.

I don’t think Catholics are going to skip out on Mass or stop reading the Bible or anything else that is important to their religion and try to replace it with yoga. I see it at most as something that’s added in addition, maybe a quiet time or a break from a busy schedule, maybe a way to find relief from pain, maybe a way to get a good workout in. … different for everyone, much like everything in life, but I don’t see anything in the Pope’s statement that makes me think that doing yoga is wrong, as long as you’re not trying to use it as your soul source of spirituality.

Just thought I’d [post this again for any new visitors:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...s/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

Annie, if Pope Francis spoke about Yoga being bad for people, he wouldn’t be doing it to insult, but to warn, or to steer, as this is his role as a very devoted Catholic Pope.

If he said not to do Yoga for spiritual reasons, this looks as if it is tame or neutral, but in fact says a whole deal about Yoga practice in general. He said in the article that all we need is the Holy Spirit, and Christians know we can pray to the Holy Spirit for ALL our needs - for anxiety and stress, for pain, for worries. These can ALL be of a spiritual nature, because, human beings are all spiritual beings as we are made in the image of God - the body and soul make up who we are. Sometimes if a person’s soul is healed their pain goes. There are people who have been seriously ill and Christians prayed for them and their pain or illness vanished. Others put their suffering into God’s hands and this can be enough to give them peace. This is not a rare phenomenon. So when he says not to seek spiritual answers in Yoga, he is saying that for all purposes Yoga is not in fact needed. There are no spiritual answers to any problem to be found in Yoga. Sure, doing any stretch may help the back, but this type of exercise can be achieved by a back specialist with no need for Yoga or for a position to be called Yoga. Yoga doesn’t need to be approached for any reason whatsoever. When people use the word ‘insult’, they forget that as Christians, to go against the tenets of their faith is insulting in a spiritual way as we are temples of the Holy Spirit.

I have so much respect for those innocent people in the Middle East who would not renounce their faith in the face of barbaric adversity, risking their lives; compared to here, in the West, where we can’t even put up with the slightest change to our daily routine for the sake of faith - me included in this in many ways, I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t admit this, who is really innocent, is a sad state of affairs. However, New Age (Yoga being lumped in with this) is simply not an advisable route to go down.

 

[AnnieHall]

Zumba’s a combo of various dance steps isn’t it, and gymnastics, or something? Designed to push people’s endurance. And I’ve heard before that running into people is also part of it, as you described! This must make for some funny, giggling moments, which can only be healthy, I reckon. Overall, the sort of thing though that takes a lot of practice to get right.

Yes, very cardio heavy, very dance inspired, it incorporates a lot of movements from Latin style dancing, so your hips are trying to move in ways they may not be familiar with, while arms and legs are doing different things, you may move front to back or side to dose in time with the music, which is when running into neighbors can happen! Basically a class is a bunch of songs with set routines, and once in a while a teacher will add a new one to keep you on your toes if you’re a regular. But things do get easier if you go on a regular basis and start to learn some of the routines (or so I’m told! Haha)

You make Yoga sound like a cross between being stretched by horses and giving birth. Some arm movements look a bit like ballet. The leg positions look as if to have bones in one’s body might rule Yoga out as a possibility (dum dum duuuum!!!), maybe not the ‘Diviners’ category though. I think at the very least, for a Christian, saying some prayers beforehand might help to keep the possible lingering odour of Kundalini Pasta at bay (prevent any danger spiritual attack, IOW). But if the lights blow in the middle of the routine…

Haha that’s a great idea! Since finding this thread, I’ve been trying to do some reading/research to figure out how much of the classes I do are from traditional yoga practices, and how much is just a Westernized adaptation that borrows from some of the parts that people determined to be useful. Of course this brings up some ethical questions about cultural appropriation and whether or not changing so much and keeping the name is respectful to the people and their traditions. But I suppose that’s a different conversation for a different time!

As far as I can tell, my “power yoga” is modeled off the Vinyasa or Ashtanga style of yoga - flowing movements connected by breath, more intense than many other forms. The "real’ versions, as I understand it, have a set number of poses you hit, always in the same order, always hold for the same number of breaths. While I didn’t find much of anything talking about chanting or meditating or the desire to empty the mind in this style traditionally, I suppose that repeating the same practice and the same movements everyday could eventually allow your mind to wander? My teacher loves to mix things up, we’re always adding in new challenges or trying out different poses, sometimes focusing more on ab/core, sometimes more on arms, or more on balance, etc. That’s part of why I like the class - coming from a background of swimming and (attempted) running, it’s nice to have something that’s constantly changing, instead of the repetitive sameness every single time!