Is Yoga Religion?

This was a paper assigned to me by my Yoga instructor in a theory course I'm auditing, and I thought it might be of interest to some of you.

It's the flavor-0f-the-week in a sense, meaning I know it would look a bit different in a month if I rewrote it. But I ended up in an incredible discussion with a classmate after writing it, so I've included notes to think about after the paper. It's still a work in progress, so don't judge the disjointed, unstructured composition of it too harshly! I'm sure some bits are repetitive and others not well-enough explored. Anyway, enjoy if you want a taste of the type of conversation you find in our hostel, on this campus and regarding Indian thought!

(I prefaced the paper with the text from "Shout to the Lord", which is what I'm referring to in italics)
The religion I was conditioned in—the religion with which I most closely identify—the religion that has the ability to comfort and quiet and feed my soul—is encapsulated in this song. I’ve spent the better part of a year questioning the validity of its doctrine; but regardless of whatever conclusion I choose to profess, I cannot deny that it is a part of me, and that it is the scope through which I perceive the essence of religion.
Worship is a defining characteristic of the religion etched on my heart. Religion introduces you to worship, and I was taught that humans were created to worship—that one never grows weary of worshiping. [All of my days, I want to praise the wonders of your mighty love…let every breath, all that I am, never cease to worship you.]
Obviously, this worship needs direction. I was shown a very pointed one—narrow in scope with an unbending identity. [My Jesus, my Savior, Lord there is none like you…My comfort, my shelter, tower of refuge and strength…praise to the King.] Religion lends a purpose to this worship of a savior by defining Him as the almighty—able to fix anything and control everything. “Mountains bow down and the seas will roar at the sound of your name.” And even more purposeful—we attribute religion with being able to exercise our innate benevolence as humans. “I sing for joy at the work of your hand.”
Religion is powerful in what it demands: “Forever I’ll love you, forever I’ll stand.” A heavy promise, riddled with sacrifice, suddenly made easy and feasible only through religion. There is no freedom because there is no need for it. Religion makes sacrifice and devotion easy, because it presents an explanation for our human tendencies toward gratitude and love (we were created to give thanks and share love), a tangible return on exercising them (Heaven and its eternal worship) and an explanation for its attractiveness—it claims to be the only path to unity with transcendence. [Unity with transcendence = my current definition of spirituality.]
By utilizing religion as a vessel for spirituality, we find explicit direction and tangible results. We can actualize our love for others and give thanks to its source. I believe that I have experienced this; I have fallen in love with my savior, feeling sheer joy and euphoria in praising Him, and then recognized Him in everything, as the common thread running through all of nature and all of humanity. My thread just had a name, a face and a doctrine. This is how I experienced spirituality through religion.
With a limited understanding of Yoga, I would venture to say that it introduces a different kind of spirituality. [This assertion is based entirely on my spiritual experience in yoga thus far, and is almost guaranteed to wear a different color by the end of the semester.] As I relax into a pranayama, I begin to feel a difference kind of consciousness. I become aware of my bodily mortality through the cleansing and life-giving power of my breath. I’m reminded of my lack of identity through the commonality of my thoughts, which I can control and eliminate. After my breath has been established and my mind put to rest, I see a self that has no identity—that simply exists and is peaceful in its existence. Tapping into this quietude and feeling purely human and nothing more is what Yoga has allowed me to experience thus far. To me, Yoga is a spirituality that leads one to look so deeply into oneself that he sees everything and nothing at the same time; dead to identity yet alive with every feeling, experience and capability.
For the moment, I’ve decided that although religion and Yoga present two different types of spirituality, a human needs both. This prevents the deadly and degenerative worship of the self. To achieve unity with transcendence, one needs to recognize and come to know the self through a spirituality that explores the mind and body humans have been given. But this is not enough. It then becomes necessary to establish where it came from through a spirituality that defines a source—a direction for the potential of knowing thyself Spirituality answers the two most important questions of a life—who am I and what am I supposed to do with it? The spirituality of yoga without the spirituality of religion results in coming to know thyself, being able to define the feeling of unity, but not coming to know the transcendence or the source of the transcendence itself. Religion’s spirituality without Yoga’s spirituality equates to knowing the face of transcendence but not being able to unify with it because of an undefined identity. If you worship something, you’re giving of yourself. If you do not know what you’re giving, then you’re not giving anything. If you’re not giving, then you’re keeping—and that’s a form of self worship.

Notes:

Goal of both: UNITY WITH TRANSCENDENCE
One without the other:
yoga's spirituality without religion's—coming to know thyself, being able to define the feeling of unity, but not coming to know the transcendence or the source of transcendence itself.
Religion without yoga—knowing the face of transcendence but not being able to fully unify with it because of a lack of correct identity.
Yoga without religion DOES lead to self-worship
Religion without yoga DOES lead to…
If you worship something, you’re giving of yourself. If you do not know what you’re giving then you’re not really giving it and therefore keeping it to yourself—a form of self worship.

at this point, my classmate brought out some writings of Tagore relating to this concept:
A person who worships God as exterior to himself does not know him—he is like an animal belonging to the Gods. –Brhadaranyaka Upanishad

Where is the division though between the personified God which is so easy to accept as being a part of every human—to fill the void (OR SOUL) that exists in every being—a void until its identity is recognized. Where is the division between that definition of the supreme being and that of eastern religion—a nameless transcendence that is accepted as such and not worshipped externally but is more-so allowed to exist undefined and praised for that very definition? Why is it such a hard gap to bridge? It’s because I can’t find a way to define the eastern view any differently. There’s obviously another layer—another step to fully realize—but my inability to internalize the one I’m at keeps me from associating any sort of acceptance with it.

My classmate's response:
--because the product of this recognition of a supreme being within yourself is your connection to everything else and the obligation it puts on you to sacrifice the self—for everything and everyone, not just your creator.

I continue:
If the creator is a separate being, you are sacrificing in gratitude and it’s warranted because He has done no harm unto you. But When we’re asked to sacrifice for everything—liars, murderers, the sins within our own desires—the products of humanizing this supreme being—it makes less sense.

Him:
Not entirely undefined—rather just not personified. Defined by its effects. Like the ability to see beauty. Morality. All concepts that are Godly, that are innate, but need to be recognized and uncovered.

My thoughts:
The personified God is indeed made a separate being through this personification—the appeal of being cared after by something all-knowing and someone who will never be matched or defeated. That’s why Yoga scared me so much—it presented the theory that the direction for my spirituality could be found within something I had possessed since birth—not something I discovered and sought after. “Ask and the door shall be opened unto you.”—Asking personifies the act of spiritual connaissance. “Seek and you shall find” is much more uncontested. Except the seeking is seen as movement away from the past self in westernized religion. And in eastern thought, seeking is done by remaining still and pulling from within.

“Be still and know that I am God”. Psalms--is that connected somehow?
To be still in all instances—not just struggle, but in seeking? In effort? In all things?

My classmate:
Here's my problem with western religion though: either God created us with free will and expects us to choose to serve Him and punishes us if we don’t, or gave us no free will and we have no choice but to serve Him—that we’re constructs with no purpose but service.

Me:
But through service, the self and purpose and ultimate happiness and love—all are actualized.

His example for me:
You feel that you owe your parents a lot.
I feels that my parents made the choice to give and I didn’t ask for it. Theirs for the asking, but not for the taking. Not theirs. I see this as allegory for God. If he created us and gave us free will. By rights we should recognize what he’s given us, but make the choice to serve if we want. (Not making the choice means that the act means nothing.)

They have the obligation to provide for you until you can provide for yourself. If you choose not to give back, thank them, then you can’t expect continued support. In that same light, if you choose not to worship your creator, He is not obligated to continue support.

Me
–but it is by grace you are saved, not by deeds or good works. Support = saved?

Classmate:
To what degree does parental obligation exist? If he gave us free will, we didn’t ask for that. Therefore owe no extra gratitude or none at all? Where does gratitude come from then? If it is his expectation, why is there gratitude?
There’s a difference in giving—when one side has a choice and when both sides have a choice. The act of choosing to be a parent: only one side has a choice.

Me:
No, the other side has a choice to validate that gift and continue to live.
The validation (the expectation of validation that the giver always has—regardless of response in receiver) of giving life is to see that life continuing to live.

Classmate:
Then ff you believe life is sacred and beautiful, then the propagation of life is validation within itself. A creator would be satisfied.


...I thought the conversation was too interesting to keep to myself. Please share your thoughts if it wasn't too scrambled to hack your way through!