Screw Union with the Divine
I have this tendency to be overly provocative, sometimes to a fault. I have managed to temper this but, as discussed last month, changing old patterns requires continued attention.
The title of this post is a perfect example. You see, I really wanted to call it “F*** Union with the Divine” but I decided to exercise my better judgement. Indulging in my taste for irreverence is immensely satisfying; however, incendiary language can easily put folks off and the intended sentiments are lost in my fancy for stirring the pot.
That I have matured only so far is evidenced by the fact that I still can’t resist finding a way to get it in here anyways. At least, I didn’t drop an f-bomb straightway in the title, asterisk-coated or not.
I have traced my relapse back to an email I recently received from Yoga Journal Magazine. The topic of the newsletter was Bhakti Yoga and the opening paragraph stated:
“It’s ultimate goal, like any other form of yoga, is self-realization and union with the Divine.”
I can accept that Bhakti Yoga, as defined classically, may have an ultimate goal of self-realization and union with the Divine but to assert that all other forms of yoga also subscribe to this notion is not only inaccurate but perpetuates a view of yoga that runs contrary to my understanding.
I suppose the editors at Yoga Journal Magazine are not reading as deeply into their newsletter copy as I am, nor do I fault them for using catch phrases to sell magazines. All the same, when yoga is made out to be an abstract thing that has no bearing on people’s real lives, it kinda pisses me off.
When I’m dealing with health insurance companies, real-estate markets and babysitters, don’t talk to me about union with the Divine. For people living in the world, it is not useful to think of yoga as some gargantuan undertaking that has the power to bring about a grand realization or transform us into something we are not already.
To suggest that such things are to be striven for, in today’s culture, generally amounts to self-abuse more than realization and defining a singular Divine inherently casts a disparaging shadow over the glory that is our mundane existence.
An important distinction needs to be made: Monks do yoga practice for different reasons then moms and dads.
I got lots of life stuff going on right now and I know that I am not the only one. A beautiful thing about sending out these intimate bits is that people who read them get to know something about me personally and when I see them at the center and ask: “how’s it going?”, they often feel license to give me an honest answer.
We all got jobs and apartments and relationships that require a lot of effort. Getting all that going in a good way is the yoga of a house-holder. I have belabored a consideration of dualistic and non-dualistic frameworks for yoga (see The Steps We Take and Discernment is Vital.) Instead, I will state my point here plainly:
The ultimate goal of yoga is to be well and appreciate life. The breathing and moving exercises we do are nothing more than a way of easing discomfort and encouraging conducive perspective. In turn, practice also tends to facilitate intimacy, strengthen relationships and make life more enjoyable. This practical application of yoga has always existed and ought not be obscured by zealots or profiteers.
Of course, this is just my opinion. Others may disagree.
J. Brown is a yoga teacher, writer and founder of 
The ultimate goal of yoga is to be well and appreciate life.
It’s ultimate goal, like any other form of yoga, is self-realization and union with the Divine.”
If life is divine and being well includes knowing yourself and being the best you that you can be today, then these two statements mean pretty much the same thing.
In the history, philosophy and writing associated with Yoga, there is so much that can be argued with, it would be possible to spend a whole lot of time picking apart literally thousands and thousands of statements such as the one that spurred this rant. I’ve spent a lot of years doing just that in religion, politics, philosophy, psychology, bicycling, woodworking, gardening, cooking and just about everything I’ve ever been involved in. None of that brought me much peace. Now days, when I read about Yoga, I like to try to imagine what the direct experience was that forms the core of truth. I don’t always get there, but I’ve found it more enlightening and definitely less disturbing to the fluctuations of my mind. I have yoga itself for thank for this wonderful gift.
Namaste’
Om Shanti’ Shanti’ Shanti’
Scott Newsom
I’m with you Scott. If life is divine and being well includes knowing yourself and being the best you that you can be today, then you’re right. They would amount to the same basic thing. Perhaps you should be writing the copy for YJ’s newsletters. You have my vote.
I also agree that there has always been wide interpretation and assertion about Yoga. I find some joy in exercising a friendly touch of cynicism and whimsy. I’m not losing any sleep over what YJ says about yoga.
Contemplating the “core of truth” is a useful suggestion.
Thanks.
Thanks for the interesting article.
I am a householder and have 2 jobs in addition to teaching yoga. I also have a mortgage and plenty of bills and a “relationship that requires effort.” So I think I am familiar with the modern situation of which you speak. I began doing yoga at 13 and I was always taught that the purpose (indeed, the definition) was “union with the Divine” although I did not even believe in “the Divine” until years later. I am 48 now and earlier this year my lifelong yoga practice resulted, as promised, in union with the Divine – or rather, the realization of that union which already existed, but which I did not fully enjoy before. By the way, I was a monastic for 14 years and I did yoga for the same reason then, that I do now. So according to your definition, apparently I’ve been doing it wrong! Namaste.
Hey Jamie-
I suppose if “union with the divine” means that we are inherently worthwhile and connected to everything and we only need to relax and enjoy our lives then I think its a perfectly fine purpose for yoga to have; however, usually, when someone says “union with the divine” there is an implication that we are somehow currently not “in union” and need to do something in order to bring it about. In some instances, we are really just talking about semantics but the words are important and associating the simple beauty of our mundane lives with “the Divine” is not the norm in most cultures.
I have deliberated quite a bit on the sentence I wrote about moms and dads practicing for different reasons than monks. I considered re-writing it but decided to leave the piece in its original form. If I were to re-write it, instead of saying that they practice for different reasons, I would say that they practice in different context. Monks live very simple lives: eating, sleeping, praying. Householders have to do a whole lot more than that: Time Warner Cable, Rent, kids, etc. etc. etc. Practice changes according to its context.
Having said that, there are many approaches in classical yoga that are based on ascetic notions of transcendence. Monks of this order are not interested in relaxing into the natural state of things so much as achieving “higher” states of consciousness. They specifically remove themselves from mundane life for this reason. Surely, not all monks are the same but removing oneself from daily life to dedicate yourself to something other than daily life certainly requires a different sort of practice then is appropriate for a householder.
In making these distinctions, I don’t believe I have accused anyone of doing anything wrong. I just think many of the conventional notions are a little off base and misguided and, as a writer, I enjoy being provocative and encouraging informed choices.
I greatly appreciate you holding my feet to the fire and invite further dialogue. Thanks for taking a moment.
Cheers.
J.,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Please note, as a writer I also enjoy being provocative and/or irreverent (as you will discover if you check out my blog, http://blog.lothlorienyoga.com) and I apologize that the intended sarcastic humor apparently did not come through when I said “I’ve been doing it wrong…” To a certain extent I think it is a matter of semantics, because yes, we are already in union with the Divine – great! so everything is perfect and we’re fine just the way we are. so why do yoga? why do anything? it’s all good, right?! (Desikachar addresses this.) That may be so but it doesn’t FEEL like it. That’s why people are miserable and looking for a “higher” state. Yoga allows us to experience our direct intimacy with Source Reality or as it is traditionally called, “the Divine.” Personally I have found that this makes my ordinary everyday life blissful, whereas before it was miserable. The practice is the same as when I was a monastic; the difference is that it is much harder to find TIME for practice as a householder – but it is even more necessary. I do share your opinion regarding asceticism and “transcendence,” however, let’s not throw out the Baby with the bathwater. I enjoy your writing. Keep up the good work.
I find that a lot of discussion about yoga is just “arguing over semantics” as we all seem to approach it with unique perspectives based on personal experience–one reason I like yoga!
I’m new to your blog but based on what I’ve read so far we are of similar mind on this topic.
I love this piece,
Thank you J. Brown!
Janet Marshall
J. you are absolutely right in that the language around yoga is a silly relic of the Hindu religionists who brought “yoga” to America. While I’ve seen yoga improve people’s lives dramatically, there’s nothing Divine about it for most of them. And more to the point, people who actually have achieved “union with the divine” never, ever say so themselves.
BUT
“The breathing and moving exercises we do are nothing more than a way of easing discomfort and encouraging conducive perspective.”
THAT LINE is the perspective a Therapist, NOT a yogi. The breathing and exercises YOU DO may be just that, and in the beginning for someone who is really ignorant that may be the first step. But many of us practice yoga not because we are “sick” and need some sort of healing but because we want to tap deeper into our potential (aka divine nature for those inclined to use such language) that develop our power (over ourselves primarily but also over others, when necessary).
My sense is that “yoga therapy” is as much a profiteering attitude as any other, attaching a quasi-medical “protocol” and language borrowed from physical therapy to an ancient tradition what will work just as well without it simply to sell a product.
Hey Bradd- Thanks for chiming in on this holiday weekend.
I’m not sure why suggesting that Hatha Yoga is merely a way of “easing discomfort and encouraging conducive perspective” implies a “Therapist.” Healthy people have discomfort and fall into unfruitful mental states just like anyone else. The practice I do with a cancer patient is essentially no different (just modified) then what I do with healthy folks who are just dropping into class. Also, the idea that practice is a way to “tap deeper into our potential (aka divine nature…” does seem to suggest a dualistic or perhaps a “qualified-nondual” interpretation.
There is an ongoing debate in the “Yoga Therapy” world about the need for such a title and an effort by the IAYT to develop better standards for a therapeutic orientation in practice. Its interesting that you found my piece here to suggest a “therapist” view because I am generally on the other side of the debate and never refer to myself as such.
In the most recent issue of Yoga Therapy today, Gary Kraftsow wrote about his view. I sent a letter to the editor in response that will likely appear in the next issue. I am including both here. Forgive me such a lengthy response but it bears direct relevance to your comment. I also encourage you to check out the articles on the essays page.
Your discernment is greatly appreciated. Cheers.
The Difference Between Yoga Therapy and Yoga
by Gary Kraftsow
Yoga therapy is a subset of yoga, but represents a different skill set as well as a different set of intentions and goals. Yoga is oriented toward eliminating the misapprehension at a fundamental level (avidya) about who we truly are and what is permanent, pure, and conducive to true happiness. This misapprehension is said to be the root cause of identifying with and attaching to any aspect of the changing phenomenal world—from the external, physical world to any internal thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and self-identity.
As we gain clarity, which leads to discernment and discrimination (viveka), we gain the ability to distinguish between who we truly are (purusa) and the changing phenomenal world we live in (prakrti), resulting in the highest level of nonattachment (para vairagya) and the dawning of self-realization (purusa khyati) and/or God realization (isvara khyati).
Yoga therapy is rooted in this fundamental world view and shares, ultimately, these same goals. But yoga therapy, which evolved in the context of Ayurveda, shares many of Ayurveda’s more immediate and short-term goals: reducing symptoms and causes of suffering that manifest on multiple levels of the human system, improving function at whatever level possible, and shifting attitude and self-perspective (in the direction of the yoga view) through the application of appropriate methods refined and transmitted through texts and oral instruction for centuries.
Much of the feedback on the standards committee is confusing yoga therapy with yoga, reflecting a lack of education about the tradition of yoga therapy. There is a tradition of yoga therapy that is related to but different from both yoga and Ayurveda. Part of our role, in my view, should be to educate our community about these distinctions, so that we can put forward an authentic model.
In Response to Gary Kraftsow’s Statement in “Member News” of YTT – Winter 2011
by J. Brown
Respectfully, I found Gary Kraftsow’s statement on the difference between Yoga Therapy and Yoga to be somewhat condescending. Mr Kraftsow defines Yoga in a “qualified non-dual” way by separating purusha from prakriti and asserting that the purpose of Yoga is “self-realization and/or God-realization.” He then distinguishes Yoga Therapy from this definition by saying that the goal of Yoga Therapy is to reduce the “symptoms and causes of suffering” through “the application of appropriate methods.” This seems to me to be an arbitrary distinction. Yet, Mr Kraftsow states this as a fact and suggests that those who do not make this same distinction need to be “educated.”
When doing breathing and moving exercises are not about applying appropriate methods to reduce symptoms and causes of suffering then, to me, it’s not Yoga. I do not subscribe to the belief that Yoga teaches us that something needs to be realized or attained.
Teaching group classes to healthy people may not require the same training as working in a clinical environment with specific conditions; however, both ought to have the same purpose and utilize the same techniques. One of the issues the standards committee faces is not just coming up with an objective metric for training standards but the message that it sends to the broader Yoga community and general public about what Yoga practice is and the role it can play in peoples lives.
In 2009, I wrote a perspective in IJYT entitled “Yoga Therapy is Not Yoga.” As the conversation has continued, I’ve come to feel that the distinction is not between Yoga Therapy and Yoga but Yoga practice that is applying appropriate methods to reduce symptoms and causes of suffering and Yoga practice that is not.
My hope is that the IAYT will not just create an accreditation process for clinical or prescriptive applications of Yoga but will educate the public about Yoga practice that is therapeutically oriented. Otherwise, Yoga Therapy will become something considered only for people who are formally diagnosed with some condition and all those people whose symptoms do not warrant medical treatment, and whose doctors are recommending they try Yoga more and more, will have no way of finding the right class or teacher amidst the swirl of athletic and ascetic approaches that pervade.
I think that a college level type course curriculum for clinical yoga therapy at an 800+ level makes sense. I also think that the IAYT would benefit not just the organization but the larger global yoga community if it could come up with a way of also offering lower level certifications. Perhaps with a different title. I see no reason why the creation of viable standards and accreditation for Yoga that is therapeutic requires us to make the distinction that Mr Kraftsow is making, nor do I think the IAYT should limit itself to clinical environments or particular interpretations.
Bradd,
This is just tangential to your specific argument with J., but I notice on your website you said,
“It is yoga not just as a way to a fit body… an accessible and democratic technology that, if you are willing to give it a try, provides a fast track to creating the life you want in a fairly short period of time.”
and you said, above, “But many of us practice yoga … because we want to tap deeper into our potential (aka divine nature for those inclined to use such language) that develop our power (over ourselves primarily but also over others, when necessary).”
“power.. over others, when necessary”? wow, I was taught we aren’t really supposed to do that, but again, I admit I’m a bit old-fashioned. Anyway I am not the yoga police, so carry on…
In any case, yes, “creating the life you want” [whatever words we prefer to use to describe that, "divine" or otherwise] – but when it actually works, and you DO get the life you wanted, shhh, you’re not allowed to say that the technology worked?! umkay. whatever.
With regard to the discussion of Therapeutic Yoga per se: From a practical standpoint, as a counselor/psychologist and yoga teacher it would be nice to have such a credential, if it were possible, which in my case it isn’t, for the same reason [$$] that the standard YA credential is out of my reach despite 35 years of training and practice. I imagine I would get in trouble for offering Therapeutic Yoga without a license – that’s how certification works, right?
From a purely philosophical perspective, suffering is suffering – I mean, yes, there are degrees and kinds of suffering, physical, mental and spiritual, but yoga [with or without "divine union"] IS “therapeutic” in that it reduces suffering. So I share J. Brown’s concern about the medicalization of therapeutic yoga.