God?

God is a concept by which we measure our pain.

- John Lennon

In Ishwara there is the seed of limitless omniscience.

- Patanjali

Beliefs, by nature, are artifacts. They are congealed and condensed abstracts of past experiences. They are concepts, not realities, although they may indeed point to a reality which is beyond both mind and senses. Erroneous beliefs perpetuate a false world-view, however, there may be “relative, meta-beliefs” with which we can work. As W. C. Fields once stated, “A man has to believe in something.” World religions, whether Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, etc., are second-hand spiritual experiences. Religions are based upon the immediate mystical experiences of their founders and saints. Once they get turned into socio-political institutions, they have lost contact with their source of being. For the yogi, mystic, or anyone who has been fortunate to have a truly transcendent experience of deeper reality, “God” is not some abstract symbol, but a living mystery to celebrate and explore.

In our modern/post-modern society, God has become highly suspect. People generally don’t trust in “belief,” anymore. The “God of our fathers” has become a laughing matter. Bill Maher’s film “Religilous” for example pokes serious fun at the naïve and superstitious aspects of religious belief. To some extent he is correct in lambasting the irrationality latent in any culturally-given belief system. The problem is that as long as we identify ourselves with our personal and cultural beliefs, we are identified with our intellectual egos. All belief systems are relative, whether mythico-religious or “scientistic.” We live in realities constructed from our personal paradigms. As Alfred Korzybski said; we take our maps to be the territory. At best we can be compassionate with each other as we struggle to make sense of things.

The purely mythological God, or Gods, of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or the religions of the ancient Greeks, is a construct of an earlier layer of our collective human psyche. However, they are deeply rooted within us. They are the foundation below our culture of rationalism. They are a deeper level of our humanity. I say “they” here, although monotheistic religions might disagree. Every culture, however, seems to develop its own image of God, and then one culture’s God battles another. Unfortunately, we mortals are the only ones who die in the process.

This is the essence of the mythological level of thought. It is deeply irrational, instinctual, emotional and also wise in a sense that both defies and compliments rational thought. We have but to look around at current modern culture to see the resurgence of mythological figures in comic books, novels, psychology, film, psychopathology, etc. Monotheism, as a mythological construct, doesn’t point to the non-dual consciousness of Eastern Advaita, instead it is an image of some supposed über-god who can, we imagine, tyrannically, dominate the inner chaos of the psyche. Freud called this a cultural super-ego. I am speaking strictly related to the mythological level of our thinking. This is the level that teachers like Bill Maher, or Richard Dawkins address.

There are other ways of understanding “God.” One is a further refinement and abstract definition of “God,” without trying to dispense with an aspect of our deeper humanity. God as Consciousness, lives and breathes within us. It is God manifesting as wisdom that might make us so inclined. God is life and mystery. God is the fundamental reality of our beings. Any further investigation that we are willing to pursue leads to possible deeper wisdom. A good start might be an open-minded survey of world religious literature. All research, study, intellectualization, however doesn’t arrive at the point. At very best, it helps us develop deeper levels of cross-cultural meta-cognition, or meta-culturalism. I don’t want to dismiss this enterprise. It may be essential to the survival of our species and our planet. Until we can get over our tribal visions of God, and our insistence on the exclusive reality of scientific-materialism, we will stay in fragmentation and conflict. The two halves of our brains, like a couple in a troubled relationship, need to at least attempt to understand each other’s point of view.

Another way of understanding “God,” is the way of the mystic, yogi, shaman, or otherwise peaceful and blissful psychopath. This is the path of disciplined subjectivity; an inner way of relating to God as Self. This path is somewhat tricky. Pathology can occur when one’s ego identification is transferred to the Self. Jung wrote, “Every encounter with the Self, is a defeat for the ego.” On the other hand, the ego may attempt a sort of psychic ju-jitsu in which it seeks to overcome defeat by identifying with the greater consciousness. The mystic, yogi, shaman, etc. knows to surrender. A great warrior of any intelligence knows when to concede, albeit temporarily. When we are willing to turn our gaze inward, not just momentarily, but as a disciplined process, we encounter an inner being of enormous power, compassion and knowledge. It is our collective, universal and transpersonal being, who is always present. We might choose to call this God, Tao, “Emptiness,” or the Self. “God,” in this sense has little or no resemblance to the mythological God. God, according to yogic mysticism is nothing other than consciousness itself.

Patanjali refers to God as Ishwara, and he continues, within the pithy outlines of the Yoga Sutras, to define his term in precise, general terms. The Sutras, even in user-friendly translations, are not an easy read. Each “thread” on the way requires contemplation and examination. For one thing, Rishi Patanjali speaks from within a Vedic spiritual context, which is foreign to most of us. This is certainly paramount when we attempt to understand his presentation of Ishwara. For one thing, Ishwara is definitely not the equivalent of our Biblical God as received through the Old and New Testaments. Nor is Ishwara in anyway equivalent with the pantheons of paganism. However, it resonates with Plato and Neo-platonic thought. Yoga is singular in offering a multitude of methods and techniques for us to enter into that consciousness. God is not a concept, whether rational or mythological, instead, God is Consciousness.

While spiritual self-discipline is highly important, many of us are incapable of any but the minutest steps towards self-discipline. We sit to meditate and we are overwhelmed by the activity of our minds. Either that or we are unable to stay awake. However, we do have recourse to a “higher consciousness,” who is ready, willing and able to help us – as long as our intent is, at least, somewhat pure. Intense devotion to God is the most powerful way of extricating ourselves from our egoic delusions and avidya. It is, in the words of Paramhansa Satyananda Saraswati, “the rocket to Self-realization.” God is neither subject nor object, and both simultaneously.

Patanjali states, “Ishawara (God) is a unique soul, which is untouched by the activity of the world.” Ishwara is uncontaminated by gunas, karma, or kleshas; Spirit beyond the reach of Nature. Rishi Patanjali continues, in the next sutra, “In God there is the seed of omniscience.” How are we to understand this? As modern/post-modernists we know damn well that there is no truly objective subject. In other words, no individual being can possibly grasp the whole picture. We might try to understand God, though, in this sense, as the transcendent source and collectivity of our individual minds. Again, though, we run into God as concept. What if God is our innermost being, shared by all of us and, at the same time, totally transcendent?

Patanjali further adds, “Not being limited by time, Ishwara is the guru of the earliest gurus. He is designated by the pranava (the mantra AUM.)” He then goes on to prescribe meditation on AUM, as a sadhana, or spiritual discipline. This is a most important point. However we might try to conceive of God conceptually, yoga is about adhering to spiritual practice through which one may have a spiritual experience, an awakening. The mind, even the most refined intellect, cannot grasp Ishwara rationally or logically. This is the problem with modern thinkers who rely on rationality as the exclusive domain of truth. True rationality must overcome this bias, which is really a psychological denial of the irrational and super-rational dimensions of our psyches and our universe. Neurotics (and, face it we are all neurotic) attempt to rationalize their irrational thoughts, impulses, desires, etc. This is the level of pathology best treated through psychotherapy. Spiritual denial, however, can only be overcome by transcendent states of consciousness. Yoga is the best treatment in this case.

Sâmkhya is primarily an intellectual path, it is the basis of Jñana yoga as referenced in the Bhagavad Gita. Some schools deny the existence of God because it cannot be proven through the epistemology of Sâmkhya, just as it cannot be proven through the epistemology of science. However, both Patanjali and Lord Krishna include Ishwara as central in their cosmologies. Krishna, as an avatara, embodies Ishwara. And, to a lesser extent, so do we all. Unlike Krishna, however, we are under the spell of avidya, ignorance. We are all UIE, under the influence of ego. Bhakti, or devotion to God, in whatever way we might try to understand Her, is a powerful means of reducing the influence of asmita. Devotion becomes perverted, however, when we hold to a simplistic and culturally bound image or definition of God. It is important that we use our intelligence. What else is intelligence but a gift of nature in helping us to return to God? True gnosis, however, means going beyond intellect, as well as, beyond personal emotional attachments. While purusha is the innermost witness of our personal experience, Ishwara is the innermost witness of purushas. God is the unconditioned and unconditional absolute.

Two Aspects of God

The Imperishable Absolute lives within every creature as its soul.

It provides everything with its own existence.

I exist within everyone as their innermost consciousness.

- Sri Krishna

The Vedantic tradition suggests that there are two aspects of God, or two ways of approaching the Absolute. One is, as we presented above, the way of approaching and apprehending God as the impersonal, all-pervading Consciousness which includes and transcends self and cosmos. The other is the way of approaching God as a distinct Personality. The first approach is represented in the Upanishads, as well as by the Yoga Sutras, the second is best and most well-known as presented in the Bhagavad Gita, where God is personified as Krishna. Although both sides present arguments that their particular way is best, we might simply say: God is both impersonal and personal. The impersonal aspect of God seems to appeal to the rational intellect. Astrophysicist, Bernard Haisch, makes an argument in his work, The God Theory, that the idea of an impersonal God is entirely compatible with science including evolution. The personal aspect of God is represented by most of the World’s major religions and appeals to those of a more emotional nature. The impersonal aspect and pathway is known as Jñana yoga, the path of wisdom or knowledge. The personal aspect and pathway is known as Bhakti yoga, the path of love and devotion.

The personal approach to God has an advantage in that our minds are attuned to “name and form.” Until we ourselves are selfless, it is near impossible for us to directly relate to a formless God. It requires transcending the mind altogether. This is something that only dedicated and experienced yogis can accomplish. On the other hand, devotion to a personal God often results in sectarianism, bigotry, egotism and violence where one image of God is held as superior over another, whether it is Krishna or Jesus, Allah or Kali. We may all need a particular Image to relate to, but, in the words of Joseph Campbell, it should be “open to transcendence.” The best way, perhaps, is to find a synthesis of Jñana and Bhakti, after all, they represent the left and right hemispheres of our cerebral cortex.

An integral synthesis of these ideas is presented throughout the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna speaks both as an individual personality and as the universal consciousness within every being. Yoga can help move us into an integral consciousness when we incorporate both Jñana and Bhakti, wisdom and devotion, without excluding either. Wisdom demands that we question and investigate, devotion demands that we do this with deep love and respect. There is a saying within the Hindu tradition that, “Bhakti without Jñana is blind, while Jñana without Bhakti is impotent.” As Patanjali put it spiritual realization requires an “urge.” This urge seems to awaken within people whether or not they have a religious background. As Jung discovered an inner spiritual awakening may sometimes open us to symbols that are foreign to our particular religious backgrounds. To reiterate Dr. Grof, “Spirituality is an intrinsic aspect of the psyche.”

Yoga meditation does not require a particular belief system. I certainly have no intention of pushing God on anybody, merely to suggest that we not dismiss Her altogether; i.e., not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Spirituality is an essential part of our beings, whether theistic, or like Buddhism, nontheistic. Maybe the concept of God is antiquated. Maybe we need a new language for our spirituality. Perhaps the most radical aspect of yoga, at least in terms of both conventional religion and scientific materialism, is the directive to look for God deep within ourselves. Instead of worthless sinners, or chance flukes of a meaningless universe, we are, as conscious beings, the essential reality. However, and this is a huge caveat, we cannot try to identify this inner divine being with our temporal ego-identities. We need to remember that we are beings of non-material consciousness having a temporary material experience.

A Rational God?

When science sees consciousness to be a fundamental quality of reality, and religion takes God to be the light of consciousness shining within us all, the two worlds start to converge.

- Peter Russell

We might envision a new “metaparadigm” in which consciousness is seen as primary to material manifestation. Certainly, this is what both physicist, Peter Russell, and astro-physicist, Bernard Haisch, advocate. As Russell writes in From Science to God, “In the current metaparadigm, consciousness is assumed to emerge from the world of space, time, and matter. In the new metaparadigm, everything we know manifests from consciousness.” Honestly, as someone brought up, educated and indoctrinated with a general worldview that we tend to refer to as “science,” the magnitude of this possible shift seems overwhelming. However, the seeds of this paradigm shift have been planted and are beginning to grow. In The God Theory, Haisch writes, “It is not matter that creates the illusion of consciousness, but consciousness that creates the illusion of matter.” Russell is an Oxford educated physicist and Haisch is an astrophysicist who has worked with NASA. From another direction we might consult the transpersonal psychiatrist, Stanislav Grof, who has conducted a tremendous body of research into altered states of consciousness. In Beyond the Brain Beyond the Brain (Suny Series, Transpersonal & Humanistic Psychology)he writes, “The experiential insights from unusual states of consciousness suggest the existence of intangible and unfathomable creative intelligence aware of itself that permeates all realms of reality. This approach indicates that it is pure consciousness without any specific content that represents the supreme principle of existence and the ultimate reality.”

Due to a cultural bias that we share in the West, and which, has taken over the world to some extent, these ideas may seem fanciful at best. Samkhya gives us a kind of middle ground. Consciousness is real, existent and independent from matter. Matter is also real and existent, although it is informed by consciousness. Without consciousness neither mind nor matter has any meaning. Without purusha, prakriti remains unmanifest. Prakriti is necessary, however, for consciousness to manifest and experience itself. What does this have to do with God? Not much really in terms of our ordinary understanding. God is not some figure who stands distant and judges, but the deepest core of our beings. As Jesus said in John 10:34, “Is it not written that ye are Gods?” This doesn’t refer to us as ego-identified beings, but to us as beings of consciousness. When we try to be God as an ego-identified being we are imitating Lucifer and most likely fit for a prolonged stay on the psychiatric unit of our local hospital. This is the tricky and important part of spiritual understanding. The failure of most people to grasp it has lead mystics into trouble throughout history. Jesus, of course, was crucified for his “heresy.” The Sufi mystic, Shams Tabrais, Rumi’s spiritual guide, was reportedly skinned alive for his assertion of God-consciousness. The inner being that Samkhya refers to as Purusha, and Vedanta calls Atman, is also known as Buddha Nature. It is both immanent within us and transcendent. It is present within our immediate experience of basic awareness, but also a stage of spiritual development that we must work toward. Meditation, which is the basis of any legitimate spiritual practice, empowers us to go beyond a conceptual “God” to a realization of our nature as God-consciousness.