Why does the interlocutor look at the other person when communicating? What does it mean if a man looks intently into his eyes during a conversation: let’s look into it in detail

Dr. Christine Mangala was raised in India and grew up a devout Hindu. Her family was closely acquainted with one of the most influential Hindu gurus and teachers. Now an Orthodox Christian writer and educator, she is interviewed by Illuminated Heart host Kevin Allen about whether various aspects of Hindu yoga are compatible with Christian faith and life or should be avoided.

Leading: Welcome to Illuminated Heart on Ancient Faith Radio. As many of you know, on our program we often talk about the influence of Eastern non-Christian spiritual ideas, metaphysics and worldviews on our culture. This is the spiritual environment from which I myself came, the environment that continues to interest me and, I hope, some of you too.

Recently, in my ward in southern California, there has been a group of people asking questions about various Eastern traditions, especially Hinduism. Therefore, I hope that our conversation today on the topic “Yoga and Orthodoxy - are they compatible?” will shed light on these questions. In addition to these issues, as we know, many Christians also practice yoga asanas, body poses that have practically become the so-called “mainstream”, the dominant trend in North America and Europe. Even some forms of meditation influenced by Hinduism are practiced. Thus, the question of the compatibility of yoga (in its various meditative forms and especially body postures) with Orthodox Christianity is the question that we will try to consider in today’s program.

My guest, with whom I am very, very happy to talk, is a Hindu woman from a caste brahmins, the highest priestly caste in India. She was raised in the yoga tradition. Her grandfather was, in fact, a close friend of one of the expositors of modern yoga and Vedanta philosophy, the famous Swami Sivananda, founder of the Society of Divine Life. But my guest, Dr. Christine Mangala, became a Christian at the age of 22 and then converted to Orthodoxy. She received her PhD in English Literature from the University of Cambridge and is the author of articles on literary theory and fiction. Christine herself has written several fiction books, as well as books on various spiritual topics, including yoga and Christianity. She is married to Dr. David Frost, director of the Institute of Orthodox Christian Studies in Cambridge (England) - a wonderful institution, by the way. They have four children. Christine attends St Ephrem's Russian Orthodox Church in Cambridge.

Her excellent article "Yoga and Christian Faith" was the impetus for this program, and today I have a guest from Cambridge on the phone with us.

– Dr. Christine Mangala, welcome to Illuminated Heart on Ancient Faith Radio. It’s great to hear you as a guest of our program.

Dr. Mangala: Thank you very much, Kevin. It is a great honor and pleasure for me to be on this program.

Leading: Thanks a lot. The fact that you are our guest is very good: I am looking forward to our conversation. Let's start with the very first question, Christine. Speaking about yoga, not in its modern and popularized context, but in the classical context - in which you were probably taught yoga - is yoga understood in its native Indian tradition as a spiritual practice, or it is presented as a form of relaxation and physical exercise, or is both true?

Dr. Mangala: Yes, I must say that yoga in its classical sense is a diverse discipline. At the core of everything is a spiritual goal and therefore it would be most fair to say that in a classical context one must understand yoga as a spiritual practice. But with work times reformers of the late 19th century or even the beginning of the 20th century, the relaxation aspect of yoga also began to dominate. However, Indian yoga teachers, starting from Sivananda, always never tired of repeating that the spiritual goal is the main goal of yoga, and postures and exercises and other things are only auxiliary. If you revere teachers, then the likes of Ashok Kumar Malhotra and even the most popular yoga writer B.K.S. Iyengar emphasize this.

Leading: Okay, and the question that I'm trying to get at, and that we'll be constantly addressing throughout our program: is it possible to somehow separate certain forms of yoga from their spiritual context? And that's why I'd like to start with this. Nowadays, most people in the UK, Europe and North America are most familiar with the yoga of body postures called hatha yoga. But this is just one of several classical forms of yoga. Could you briefly describe for our listeners all, that is, five, as far as I know, classical forms of yoga - the spiritual disciplines of Hinduism.

Dr. Mangala: You only mentioned five. It’s like with the sacraments in the West: some say there are seven, and some say there are countless, etc. In fact, if you look at the Bhagavad Gita, then every chapter is entitled “Yoga of something or that.” -that”, which is a little confusing, but we'll stick to these five. These are, firstly, karma yoga, in which you work to develop detachment and achieve a state of dispassion. In the Bhagavad Gita there is a wonderful phrase about “labour without toil” and “laxness at work”, the paradox is how to realize it in our Everyday life– this is karma yoga. Secondly, jnana yoga is the yoga of true knowledge, true discrimination, it is an exercise of the intellect in various forms: in distinguishing truth from falsehood, ignorance from enlightenment, etc. Thirdly, bhakti yoga (which, in fact, is one of the most popular forms of yoga in India and, so to speak, is widely practiced) - it simply assumes devotion and love for a chosen deity or God in general. Then there is Raja Yoga, which is a much more advanced form of mental and psychosomatic control. Finally, hatha yoga, which is very popular in the West, is aimed at gaining athletic shape, tuning the body, if you like, that is, it works with poses.

Leading: Thanks for the review, I think it's a great review. So, Christine, in the context of classical yoga in which we are discussing, how do poses, asanas, and hatha yoga relate to other forms of yoga? I mean whether they are spiritual members of the same degree, or the lowest form, or a prelude to other forms? Tell me, is it possible to achieve liberation in the Hindu sense solely through the use of yogic postures or asanas, etc.?

Dr. Mangala: I would say that in classical yoga you can look at it two ways. Seen from the point of view of gradual ascension, this may be a little misleading. If you look at it more broadly, it is like spokes in a wheel: there are different aspects, and the idea is to get to the center. And the poses are practiced along with all the other things, so you're actually practicing multiple aspects of yoga at the same time. This is a diverse discipline. Of course, in ancient times there was no talk of achieving liberation, that is, spiritual liberation, through the practice of postures in themselves. Such an idea would not have even occurred to the ancient posture rishis, because they were fully aware of the full range of psychosomatic problems that had to be overcome in any spiritual path.

And even when a yogi simply sits under a tree and impresses people with his postures or lies on nails, he is often seen as a spectacle, as an object of ridicule. Even now there are people who do this in pilgrimage centers - I call these places “rural bazaars” as a kind of spectacle. And this was certainly not encouraged: simply focusing on the physical aspects of postures in the expectation that somehow an arbitrary spiritual state would be achieved often leads into nooks and crannies. In this case, some psychic feats become possible, but not necessarily spiritual liberation. This is recognized by Indian yoga teachers in its classical sense.

Leading: Speaking of yoga and practicing it in an organic sense, what is the ultimate goal of yoga? How is this goal defined by Patanjali in his classical yoga sutras and other works like these?

Dr. Mangala: Patanjali speaks of yoga as the “eight-pointed” Ashtanga: eight-pointed poses, eight-pointed discipline. And in fact, the poses that are practiced, asanas, come third on the list. It all actually starts with moral and psychological preparation, with five restrictions: you must control your feelings. And the five disciplines are the other side of this: you have to be trained to do the right things, and then you have the third stage - body postures. And then you move on to the regulation of the vital force and the cessation of the participation of the senses (Pratyahara), and then to concentration and meditation, and finally you have what is called the word “samadhi” - absorption. Now, as a rule, samadhi or absorption is seen as the ultimate goal.

However, a tricky question arises here: in What exactly are you being absorbed? And I'm afraid there are different answers to this question given by different schools of Indian/Hindu tradition. Some will say that this is the absorption of some faceless Brahmana(Brahman), and it is there that the individual becomes identical with the universal; and others will say that this is absorption into the transpersonal, the divine; and, of course, if you are a follower of the Buddhist tradition, you will not have any question about any deity at all: after all, according to the original Buddhist teachings, you “ enter Nirvana"(Nirvana), as if "suffocating the soul." Absorption or samadhi is keyword, described by the yogi Patanjali in his yoga sutras.

Leading: So, it would be fair to say that if we adhere to the classical understanding of yogic disciplines, then their ultimate goal is samadhi. Therefore, I think we need to flesh out this goal somewhat, talk about it in a little more detail. Samadhi is often described in terms of sakshiananda, “pure consciousness”, “bliss”, etc. How can they be compared, and are they comparable in principle, with our views within Christianity about the Kingdom of God and similar concepts?

Dr. Mangala: Well, the concept of sakshyananda covers in its own way truth, knowledge and bliss - it is a tripartite description of such ultimate experience. In my opinion it sounds wonderful, but this concept is static, it is also an abstract concept. Now, when Jesus talks about the spiritual goal of human beings such as the Kingdom of God, then this, for me, is an unusually rich, exciting, dynamic, inspiring vision. Because His concept is not only internal, but also external; it is not only individual, but also communal: it involves other human beings. And, moreover, the Kingdom of God that Jesus speaks of embraces not only humanity, but the entire Creation. Not only we humans are destined to be transformed, but also Creation along with us. Moreover, this is not a static goal, because it is rooted in the Christian concept of God, who is Life-Giving Trinity, sung in our liturgies, which means it is a very dynamic, active force of love and relationships.

That is why it is an unprecedented concept, an incredible creed, and also, for me, it is even more magnificent because it does not end; it is not a goal that you will achieve and that’s it, it lasts. It is a continuous transformation “from glory to glory,” in the words of the Apostle Paul. I can go on and on about this, but my verbosity will probably be unnecessary. But there is one very important reminder about the Kingdom of God, with which I would like to summarize: the Kingdom of God is achievable only through the Crucifixion of the Lord, only by following Christ. Which means through suffering on an equal basis with Him.

This is another thing that struck me as a Hindu, a Hindu convert from Hinduism. One of the reasons why I became a Christian was that I found the Hindu answers to questions about evil and suffering to be extremely insufficient and even pathetic: it is not very good to simply reduce this problem to "karma" or " past life" Whereas, by accepting suffering with all our hearts and conquering it with love and faith, we heal not only our wounded soul, but also the entire wounded world. And at the same time, this is exactly what the Kingdom of God is. So all of this is to suggest that the Christian idea of the Kingdom of God is very far removed from what I would call - I guess, yeah, I'll offend people if I say it, but I'll say it anyway - what I would call a "do it" set. himself" ideas of samadhi. Also, the idea of samadhi inevitably becomes ego-oriented. Even if people talk about “community work, social activities"(community work) and the like, ultimately samadhi pushes the whole world aside for them, pushes other people and Creation into the background.

Leading: How do you think? You know, I've always been confused by this idea of samadhi, especially in the context of bhakti yoga, which I practice and which, as you noted earlier, is devotion to a personified deity. And this is what is causing me confusion - perhaps you could shed some light on this. We are now talking about people like the Vaishnaites who worship Krishna, and in my case it was Ramakrishna, but there are others who worship the Holy Mother (Sarada Devi?) and Kali, etc, etc. My question is, Kristin: is samadhi always a loss of self? Of course, in Christianity our identity as God is key. Is it always or not always a loss of self, or is it “blowing oneself out,” as the Buddhists might say?

Dr. Mangala: I think that the concept of “self”, which is spoken of in the Hindu tradition, does not coincide with the Christian understanding of the human person. The whole of human anthropology is understood differently, and this creates many problems. So, when you look into the Bhagavad-gita, you see a classic example of how the human being is considered as a kind of soul residing in a body. The separation of body and soul is extremely strong, so that only the soul matters; the body is just a collection various elements. A very similar idea is present in other Hindu schools of philosophy, even in Buddhism, but Buddhism goes even further by destroying the very concept of personality. Therefore, when you ask: “What exactly is absorbed into itself?”, most Hindus will mention any illusory sense of “self”. In other words, there is no sense of the significance of a separately created human person from which to build.

Now why do I find Christianity so liberating? The fact is that in Christian theology we have a clear idea and a convincing idea: God is love, and God is God the Creator and Lover of Man. These two things are immensely significant when you think about who human beings are, because since humans are created in the image and likeness of God, they also have these personal qualities. And this is incredibly important when you talk about the Kingdom of God or “deification” ( theosis) and other related concepts. For human beings are inherently valuable, since they are created in the image and likeness of God. On the other hand, I do not find anywhere in the Hindu way of thinking parallel concept. So, samadhi is naturally a delusion, because there are different ways definitions of a human being, but mostly you will notice in them an underlying Gnostic tendency: the soul turns out to be significant, but the body does not.

Leading: I have talked to some people in our country who are part of the Hare Krishna movement. There are people who, thank God, began to come to our church with their questions. And they argue that it is not about absorption into an impersonal deity, but about eternal life as unique creature in "location" ( approx. translator: in the original - “loca”, presumably a corruption of “location” - location) with Krishna, with their deity. So I was confused whether we are talking about losing oneself in all cases or only in some of the Vedanta schools.

Dr. Mangala: One of the problems with so many expressions of Hinduism today is that it has become quite difficult to keep track of the cross-currents that are taking place. You would find a lot of adopted Christian terminology, which I call "liquefying leaven" - meaning that a large part of Christian thinking and Christian terminology and concepts were absorbed into Hinduism and spat out back, like Hinduism itself - to the West. And this idea of “living in disposition” is just a wonderful fantasy. Several years ago I met a Hare Krishna follower on the street, and he was trying to sell me the Bhagavad Gita. I felt sympathy for him and said, “Okay, I'll buy a copy” - you see, I was working on translations of the Bhagavad-Gita at that time and I told him, “You know, all you dream of is poetic fantasy. In reality there is Jesus Christ who actually came as a human being. God actually came at one historical moment in time, He came to us to offer everything that you dream of.” This is the place where, for me, the Hare Krishna movement is located.

Leading: Christine, you did a great job putting him in his place! After all, when I myself meditated in the ashram at one time, already having my experience of Christ, I came to the conclusion that my aspirations, visual images and thoughts that the guru taught me were actually poetic fantasies. They represented my wanting something or not wanting something happening inside of me - I think you know what I mean. So you gave a good, very good description. Would you like to add anything to it?

Dr. Mangala: I was going to say as an addition that, as you know, there is a word “visions” used by the Church Fathers and other theologians who write in their commentaries that there are certain views and images that we expect, and Christ is a reality. And as soon as you gain reality, visions are no longer needed. The point is that there are many visions depicted in other religions. Some of them, at best, encourage people to look in the right direction, in the worst case, they can be demonic - that’s the difference. No one can say for sure, and you will need spiritual insight to figure out which is which. In fact, the visions can be so intense that you may even hallucinate the images. Agehananda Bharati, the Austrian converted to monk in Hare Krishna, spoke of how he "saw" his goddess in reality, and he had a very clear idea of what happened and how it happened to him.

Leading: Yes, of course, Ramakrishna constantly appeared in visions of Kali, and so on and so forth - and this took on some forms that were very frightening to me. Christine, you wrote in your article about yoga and Christianity that the key problem is that yoga encourages people to think that there is a way to achieve wholeness of body and mind by using human methods, that is, yoga, without grace and faith in salvation through Jesus Christ. But there is a kind of paradox here that I would like to throw at you. We Orthodox, as you probably know, are sometimes accused, especially by evangelical Protestants, of our increased attention to deification and synergy with God. And these are accusations of the same kind that you make of yoga: accusations of spiritual efforts, work on righteousness. Help us understand how to differentiate between yoga as a false spiritual effort, so to speak, and deification and synergy as appropriate and effective spiritual efforts?

Dr. Mangala: I’ll admit right away: I really love the Orthodox concept of synergy. This concept is the most beautiful and inspiring way to recognize human freedom. Orthodox writers emphasize synergy because they recognize it as part of the fact that we are created in the image and likeness of God, as the freedom we have. God was not stingy: he gave us this freedom. And the idea of effort can easily be misinterpreted. This is not the case when we can pull ourselves out with our on our own, and this is the very case when we use God-given energy and direct our physical, mental and spiritual powers to God, to Christ through the Spirit.

Let me give you an example. And this will not be a brilliant example, but a rough one. Let's say someone is rushing at full speed, striving and eager to get somewhere. And at the same time, he does not know exactly where he is going, and perhaps he is even on the wrong road, maybe the GPS navigator is letting him down. But as soon as he realizes that he will not get anywhere, he must turn back.

So, this is what happens to most of us: we, in our fallen state, find ourselves deceived by our sins and passions, confused by the “follies of this age.” And first we seek to find comfort in all kinds of things that the world offers - in what the Bible calls the words “the world” or “the flesh.” But when we realize that all this does not work, we literally turn back, that is, we repent. And then, as soon as this turning back - this redirection of our energies to the right human goal, which is to seek God, worship and glorify Him - occurs in all its sincerity, we are filled with the Holy Spirit. In other words, God's power begins to flow into us. This is why I love the word “synergy” because it recognizes two aspects of spiritual life. So when we pray, when we struggle, it is the Holy Spirit praying through us. This is my response to the reproaches hurled by evangelical Protestants about so-called “synergy,” which is a kind of effort.

I will give you another of my favorite examples, taken from the life of St. Ephraim the Syrian, the patron saint of our parish. This example perfectly allegorically tells us what kind of effort we should make. St. Ephraim sees the human personality as a “harp of the Spirit,” as a beautiful musical instrument. To play the music of the Holy Spirit well, we must be pure: the harp must be clean and well tuned, and its strings must be neither too tight nor too loose. That is, our spiritual effort, asceticism - everything that is recommended Orthodox Church and the Orthodox tradition of fasting, almsgiving, repentance, thanksgiving, prayer - all these are the means to achieve such an attunement. That is, in my opinion, synergy is the redirection of forces coming from God in such a way that they can flow into us and change us. I hope I have addressed some of the criticisms.

It's the same with deification, which is a bold and a little scary word for some people - they feel it implies too much. But that's not all, because if you look in the Bible, what does it say? We are commanded by God, we are told: “Be holy, because I am holy.” How can we ignore this command? After all, He will not at all ask us to do this on our own, far from it - He pulls, “pushes” us, if you like. This is not a military order, but a command of love. God manifests His will. He is a great lover of humanity. We tirelessly sing “Lover of Mankind” at all our services, meaning that “God is a Lover of Mankind,” He is ready to share His life with us, and He seeks us first. Parable about prodigal son is a classic example of how He seeks us out first. When we are still far away, He is already hastening to us.

And then, all this is very difficult to grasp with modern perception, because people have not yet even begun to think about God as love. They are still trapped in the outdated ideas of God as the punisher, God as the collector of sins, and God as the law - and all these false gods need to be gotten rid of first. When you read the Bible and pray, you discover a God of love - that's where you should start. However, what happens when love is offered? Many people these days, just as they did in the past and still do, say, “No, thank you. I am self-sufficient." But the moment you push back by saying no, you close the door: God does not intend to force Himself. So, I like to think of deification as being transformed by God's love. The wider we open the windows - and this is what I mean by our efforts - the more streams of God's light penetrates inside. And we must remember that this is not a static light, this is the dynamic light of the Trinity - the light that we allow to penetrate, illuminate and change us. This is what deification is, in my limited understanding.

And in this life we are given the opportunity to gain insight into the lives of the saints who have shown us throughout the centuries that this kind of change is possible, that one can become “light-permeable” to God in this life, right in this life and even more so in life to come.

Dr. Mangala: I think so, because of the natural meaning that sacraments, the mysterious and mystical dimensions of life have for Hindus. And in Orthodox Christianity they will, one might say, feel at home. I remember traveling through India with my family and husband, we went to Haridwar in the north and attended an evening lantern ceremony there. You know, hundreds and hundreds of people lit lanterns, said prayers at certain times, letting them swim down the Ganges River, the mother of all living things, the giver of life, and so on. And I couldn’t help thinking how easily this could be turned into a Christian prayer of thanks, and the Orthodox would be able to perform it, because, you know, we perceive everything in some mystical, sacred way, which is naturally combined with culture, in which Indians grew up with.

Leading: Hinduism is so material in its essence, even with the duality of soul and body, it has so many material aspects. And, of course, in Orthodox Christianity we also have a material aspect - the event of God becoming human, so I agree with you. How and when, Christine, did modern, posture- and meditation-oriented yoga become, as you wrote in your article, “a textbook example of American self-help and positive thinking schools and established itself in the marketplace as a safe and easy path to mainstream bliss”? Was it under Vivekananda in the 19th century, or was it before him under Maharishi, or under someone after him?

Dr. Mangala: In fact, believe it or not, I don’t want to say that I lived in America and saw it with my own eyes, but the origins go back to the beginning of the 19th century, to certain literary figures such as Emerson and Thoreau, who laid the beginning of this movement. Emerson, of course, was a thorough transcendentalist and unitarian, and he introduced the concept of the Over-soul and wrote poems about Brahman and the like. But did you know that the Boston Brahmin Thoreau was the first to practice yoga?

Leading: Really? I did not know that.

Dr. Mangala: It was him, undoubtedly! He and people like him, in fact, probably reacted this way to the excesses of Calvinist Puritanism, I’m not sure, but this was apparently the way they were surrounded. And they began to introduce more idealistic ideas about human beings. I always feel that, throughout history, this is the way the Holy Spirit works. After all, something is forgotten or not recognized sufficiently, and someone succeeds and even turns out to be overvalued - and you understand this, and it is necessary to restore the balance in one way or another. And then someone else comes and with their actions stirs up the waters, introduces ambiguity. I mean people who flirted with the ideas of Swedenborg and his followers, Blavatsky with her theosophy and other people like them - it’s difficult to go into detail now, but there is a book about this that I can recommend, I will do it a little later. So, they created the “spirit”, this is the main thing, they created “ it with" - the ideal of a psychologized psychic religion.

Further, what is interesting is when Vivekananda arrived at the meeting of the World Parliament of Religions ( approx. translator- a congress of representatives of different faiths, held in the United States in 1893), then it was like a breath of air for him: he very quickly saw the prospect - this was another point of intersection of East and West, but not simple, but out of the ordinary. And Vivekananda changed, reformulated classical Hindu metaphysics, creating something called "practical Vedanta", which was actually far from what Shankara, the original philosopher of Vedanta, taught. But this “practical Vedanta” turned out to be too abstract even for Vivekananda himself, so then he created his manual on Raja Yoga, and it was the language of this manual that had a huge influence - incredibly close to the language of “self-help” books and “self-development” books. After all, he directly stated that the whole goal is how to take control of yourself and control nature.

But in his works, in some places there are, in my opinion, ridiculous, and sometimes downright unceremonious promises of instant results, aimed at creating a consumer mentality. Now there is this approach: "instant results" and "quick fixes", if you will, "do it yourself", all this "here and now" and "in your own home" and on your own - don't bother going anywhere else ! This approach has received further development among people such as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Rajneesh and among entire nations such as swamis and matajis.

I mentioned one book here and I think your readers might be interested in it. It is called A History of Modern Yoga: Patanjali and Western Esotericism, written by Elisabeth de Michelis and contains very useful information about this extraordinary mutual enrichment of ideas from East and West in late XIX century, which ultimately gave rise to two modern forms of yoga: body posture yoga and meditative yoga.

Leading: Please repeat the title and author again for our listeners. Spell out the author's last name.

Leading: Following the line that we followed and from which we deviated a little, I would like to ask: is there anything wrong, in your opinion, in using yoga as a form of relaxation or exercise? And to add to this, should Christians be aware of or concerned about the spiritual baggage that yoga often carries? Do you think it is possible to practice yoga completely separate from its religious component?

Dr. Mangala: It’s a paradox, but the movement that arose then has now produced certain results - let’s give examples: the Ministry of Health and Sports of England recommends yoga for its football players and athletes. The local National Health Service recommends yoga for people with medical problems etc. Yoga has become very commonly used as a form of exercise and relaxation, along with physiotherapy and other such things. And I think that's a good thing in some ways, because what they've done is to decouple the parts of yoga, and doing a few stretches or some proper breathing will certainly be really beneficial for posture and help realign and calm the mind.

A word of caution is necessary here. Exercise in moderation is a wonderful thing, and yoga exercise in moderation can be a wonderful thing. But I would also like to point out that what happened to some people I know is that when these people got fed up simple exercises, they moved on to more complex ones, and then they became addicted. I use the word “addiction” because the happy hormones are released, it gives you a boost and you become addicted to it in the same way that runners are addicted to running, etc. And here is the time to stop and think about what exactly is happening: you Are you just relaxing or is it actually an addiction for you, akin to craving for alcohol or overeating. And this is a dangerous moment.

The second thing I would like to say about spiritual baggage is that Christians definitely - and I'm talking to Christians now - definitely need to be careful with what they receive as spiritual baggage, whether they read books, whether they go to yoga classes. First of all, there are two things that Christians should do: first, they should be completely and completely established in their Christian faith, in prayer and worship. Only in this case will we, Christians, have light, the true light of Christ, will we be able to distinguish good and take it, sweeping away evil. I have a pretty simple image of Christ, and when people ask me, “How do you deal with your past, your Hindu past?” - I say: “let’s say there are some good things in the attic and there is garbage, then Christ is a magnet.” I am using a metaphor here: Christ acts like a magnet. He will attract good things to himself, and the rest will fall away. And we will need this light [of Christ], otherwise we will not be able to say what is right and what is wrong. The second thing that cannot be overlooked is the need to ensure that your yoga teachers - whether they teach only poses or not only - do not lead you, openly or covertly, to other things that already involve you in Hindu spirituality. it with. For, as I have already said, by virtue of samadhi as its goal, self-realization and other similar things, it is alien and incompatible with Christianity, where we seek the Kingdom of God. In addition to these words, I would even say that it is one of the forms of apostasy in itself. in the worst sense. So, it is absolutely clear: there are two necessary things. You must be steadfast in good Christian faith, worship and prayer, and, as a result, be able to make distinctions. You should also monitor whether the exercises remain just exercises or whether they gradually turn into something else.

A researcher friend of mine in the States signed up for one such group to keep herself in good health. physical fitness. After some time, she discovered that the teacher was giving them mantras, after which she began to enter strange mental states; she was then writing a dissertation for her Ph.D., which in itself is enough to put anyone into a strange mental state. The classes did not help, on the contrary, she became more anxious, and she quit them very soon, because she is an Orthodox girl and therefore realized that something was wrong. So, I argue: we really have to learn to discriminate - and this is very important.

Leading: You know, that's what I want to add to this. Once upon a time, many, many years ago, even before becoming a Christian, I went through a school of transcendental meditation, where they tried to put Hindu religious it with. However, they told you: bring a piece of fruit, and you had to bring this or something like that, and then when you came, the American instructor put it in front of a photo of the Maharishi and his guru, said a few words in Sanskrit, then gave you a mantra in Sanskrit for repetition - so, in many ways, it was transcendental meditation in the spirit of Hinduism. Therefore, Christine, I share your point of view. Since we must wrap things up, I want to ask one last question about attempts to “Christianize” yogic techniques. You mentioned Déchanet and other authors in your articles. So can there be truly Christian yoga?

Dr. Mangala: Deshane is very interesting case. He's very clear thinking writer. Are you familiar with his works?

Leading: Do not know. To be honest, I learned about it from your article. Now, understanding a little more, I'm going to read it.

Dr. Mangala: He is very thorough and also very careful and clearly distinguishes between the spiritual ethos of yoga and Christian beliefs, and he makes it very clear that they are incompatible. Deshane has a bright head and a good style. Further, in the second part of the book he gives practical recommendations on how to use yoga poses to glorify God, sing His praises, express repentance, etc. This is a kind of synchronization of Christianity, Christian prayer and worship with yoga poses.

I thought it sounded interesting, so I spent some time while writing this article doing what he recommended. Then soon it occurred to me unpleasant feeling It was as if I was becoming terribly self-conscious in my prayer: now I was not forgetting about myself, but became hyper-conscious of myself. I really didn't like it. I would like to focus on God and not on how I pray. And this really confused me. So my personal experience such that I would prefer to simply do the exercises and then pray, without thinking about postures in connection with prayer.

Leading: Interesting. Our broadcast is coming to an end. I don’t know who – Christians or not – are listening to us now, but for Christian listeners I want to ask you seriously: what conclusion have we come to regarding the practice of yoga by Orthodox Christians? Do yoga? Not to study at all? Or do it with some restrictions?

Dr. Mangala: Well, I think, as long as these people know what they are doing... So, for example, some of the asanas in the early stages are okay, as long as you take them as a form of relaxation, as a way to get your body in shape and as a way learn to breathe correctly - most of us don’t know how to breathe correctly - but this is a limit beyond which I would not go. Anything more difficult will somehow become a major problem for you because it requires proper health. For example, if you suffer from high blood pressure, you should not do Sirsasana pose. You know: this is bad for you and you need to be aware of these things.

Leading: Is this a headstand?

Dr. Mangala: Yes. If you have a thyroid problem, you should also be careful about which asanas to do and which not to do. So you will need more knowledge than most people who go to these groups. Because all the trouble begins here. As for meditative practices and chanting mantras, etc., then you definitely need to say “no” to this, because they put you into some mental states, which can be very dangerous sometimes. So I would talk about the most limited and minimal activities. Minimal in the sense of immersion within, when even thoughts should not arise about these classes as yoga, if you like it.

Leading: I want to add this. I knew a woman who was 42 and started doing hatha yoga. She was actively studying, and perhaps there was talk of addiction. Not knowing that she had high blood pressure, she regularly did headstand poses. This woman was a very close friend of my mother. So, while she was standing in one of these positions, she suffered a brain aneurysm and died on the spot.

Dr. Mangala: Well, this is an outrageous case! But, in fact, this case is one of many. I would say that there are comedians who make fun of Indian gurus who do some of these yogic practices - they are ridiculed by saying that these poses can actually damage the capillaries of the brain - and people actually suffer, damage their brains, and think that they are entering into a state of bliss because they simply don’t understand what’s what anymore.

This is extremely harsh criticism, but the danger exists, and even doctors, when they advise something, must be careful about their recommendations. I hope they really understand this. On the other hand, I myself notice that whenever I forget something or when I sit bent over the computer for too long, if I sit down, in a certain way folding my arms and breathing a little slower, etc., I start to feel better. This is me talking about how you can come to your senses, and similarly, if your limbs are numb, you take a few basic poses, and this helps. I'm a very average amateur, so I won't go into too much detail. I move from doing nothing to doing the simplest things. Yes, I'm glad you mentioned this story because health is extremely important when people start doing these things.

Leading: Yes, as with any other physical exercise. So our guest on today's program was Christine Mangala, Ph.D. Christine, thank you so much for being my guest on Illuminated Heart on Ancient Faith Radio. It was very fun and exciting.

Dr. Mangala: Thank you very much. It was very nice to talk with you.

Translation by Dmitry Kulikov and Maria Bagirova

Psychologists say that a person who hides his eyes or looks away in a dialogue can be either a very modest person or a liar. And it’s true that someone whose eyes “shift” gives the impression of not being a very decent person. But people often don’t like to look eye to eye, and this is not connected with thoughts of stealing something or cheating. Why do we look away? Do liars look you in the eye? Modern science has its own answers to these and other questions.

Eyes are the mirror of the soul

Experts from the University of California are convinced that 93% of the quality of communication is determined by non-verbal means. Body language, tone, timbre of voice and, of course, the expression of the eyes - all this helps to understand what a person really wants to say.

Other figures are given in a study led by Steven Janik and Rodney Wellens from the University of Miami in Florida: 44% of attention during communication is focused on the eyes and only 12% on the mouth. It is the eyes that are the “litmus test” of our emotions: they reflect fear, disappointment, bitterness, joy... But why then do we look away so often?

Trying to concentrate

Psychologists Fiona Phelps and Gwyneth Doherty Sneddon in their work “Gaze-Disgust” tried to determine the dependence of the duration of the gaze on the method of obtaining information and the level of its complexity. They conducted an experiment in which two groups of 8-year-old children were asked easy and difficult questions, with the former receiving information face-to-face and the latter through a video monitor.

It turned out that the more complex the question, the more often the child looked away in an attempt to concentrate and find the answer. It is interesting that a similar situation was observed more often in groups where the dialogue was built face to face.

Liar? Liar!

There is a persistent stereotype that when lying, a person is unable to look his interlocutor in the eyes. However, British psychologists from the University of Portsmouth are confident that everything is happening exactly the opposite.

The person telling a lie wants to make sure that his “noodles” are securely settled in your ears, so he continuously monitors your emotions, looking intently into your eyes. But is this behavior effective?

Power of persuasion

Sometimes liars do this: knowing that the interlocutor will be unpleasantly surprised by his shifting gaze, he looks intently through the person, directing his gaze to the area of the bridge of his nose.

A series of experiments conducted by psychologists Francis Chan of the University of British Columbia and Julia Minson of the Kennedy School at Harvard University showed that the more intently a speaker looks into the eyes of the interlocutor, the less convincing his speech seems. Have you ever noticed that many public figures do not look into the eyes, but a little lower or at the bridge of the nose? Close visual contact can often be seen as a clear attempt to impose one's point of view.

One on one

British scientists from the University of Portsmouth also proved that people look into the eyes of their interlocutor longer if they are face to face with him - on average 7-10 seconds. This time is reduced to 3-5 seconds if communication occurs in groups.

Flirting triangle

A smile, a wink, a long look straight into the eyes... Such behavior is regarded as modern society like an attempt at flirting. Many of us probably avoid prolonged eye contact for this very reason. What if a person thinks something wrong?

Communication consultant Susan Rabin confirms this stereotype in her book 101 Ways to Flirt: Long eye contact is extremely important for flirting, with men and women using different "techniques." If representatives of the stronger half of humanity prefer a direct gaze, which they at a subconscious level consider to be a manifestation of strength and courage, then women “slide” their gaze along the so-called “flirting triangle”: the lady first visually examines the entire “object”, if the “test” is passed by the subject successfully, the gaze “rests” on the eyes.

The reason is misfortune

Dr Peter Hills, who teaches psychology at Anglia Ruskin University, and Dr Michael Lewis from Cardiff University, have published a paper which suggests that unhappy people tend to avoid eye contact.

They are more likely to pay attention to new hairstyle, beautiful shoes or the scent of perfume. Perhaps this happens because the suffering person does not want to immerse himself in the true emotional state of the interlocutor. He has his own problems “through the roof”!

Visual, auditory or kinesthetic?

Neuro-linguists offer their explanation. Whether a person likes to look into the eyes or tries to quickly look away - it depends on the way he thinks. Visual learners think through visual images, which is why it is so necessary for them to focus on their eyes in order to “read” the missing information.

For auditory learners, sounds are important - they are more likely to listen to the timbre and intonation of the voice, looking somewhere to the side. Kinesthetics, based on intuition and tactile sensations, during communication try to touch the interlocutor, hug, shake hands, while they usually look down.

Aggression, or What does he need?

Social psychologist Julia A. Minson is convinced that visual contact, on the one hand, is a very intimate process, on the other hand, it can reflect the desire of one person to dominate another.

“Animals will never look each other eye to eye,” says Julia, “unless they then intend to fight for dominance.” Indeed, a person looking closely at you gives rise to a feeling of anxiety and a lot of questions.

If this is a stranger on public transport or at a deserted bus stop, then the question immediately arises: “What does he need?” Nervousness can lead to mutual aggression. If a colleague, a good friend, or a nice saleswoman in a supermarket stares into your eyes, you want to quickly look at yourself in the mirror and check if the parsley stuck to your teeth during lunch or if the mascara ran. Each of us has experienced similar feelings of awkwardness, so we often prefer to quickly look away.

Sep 20, 2016 tigress...s

Some people ask why a person doesn't make eye contact when talking. Sometimes there may be several reasons for this, the reception is completely different. Therefore, it is impossible to say that a person is lying or hiding something.

Reasons why a person does not make eye contact

Shyness or lack of self-confidence;
If he wants to hide something, such as affection or love;
The insincerity of his feelings. On the contrary, he may hide something, the fact that he is married, married or other acts;
Heavy look. People who are very powerful have an incredibly heavy gaze that pierces and is unpleasant to others. Cold, seemingly empty, embittered eyes will not please everyone;
Doesn’t want to give information about himself, is used to avoiding answers, often lies;
No interest in the interlocutor, fatigue.

Other reasons:

When there's just nothing left to say

Looking straight ahead imposes certain obligations, such as answering honestly a question that has not yet been answered. I don’t want to lie, but I can’t tell the truth either. That is why a person hides his gaze and avoids answering. There could be a lot of reasons. And an open, “honest” look does not always mean that a person is not lying. They hold up just fine when looked at point-blank. Such people are used to it, and their gaze is quite trained.

If you are shy and vulnerable

Don't pay attention to this fact Special attention. Not everyone likes to be in a close environment; many are stressed by crowds and views from all sides. If one is confident, the other may be in constant turmoil. Therefore, you should not judge by the look and assume that since a person does not look into the eyes, it means that he is lying, in love or wants to deceive. Maybe he's just not confident in himself or doesn't want to show his weaknesses. People are different. Upbringing, habits or character very often leave their mark.

How to make a person look into your eyes?

If a person does not look into the eyes, then you can try to look into them furtively. Call for a conversation by interesting topic, intrigue, ask a difficult question and see the reaction. Many people open up at this time. You can look at his communication with other people. If a person does not make eye contact all the time, perhaps he has such a character. May be stubborn or hide feelings. He cannot control himself all the time, so sooner or later he will be able to look into his eyes.

Not all people like to look directly at the other person. Some people generally find direct gaze unpleasant. If a person avoids looking at you, it doesn’t mean that he is hiding something or not saying anything, maybe he just has that style of communication. Most often, people who are shy and unsure of themselves look away. Also, some people do not make eye contact if their parents, bosses are authoritarian, or they have a habit of submission. It’s easier to lower your eyes and tell them “yes” than to hold your gaze.

In society, it is considered bad manners when a person does not look his interlocutor in the eyes when communicating. Such people are suspected of hiding something or not telling something, and are unfriendly. However, psychologists say that this behavior has a variety of reasons.

Anger and excitement

Not long ago, through a series of experiments, British scientists found that in just one second, when people meet their eyes, they exchange a volume of information comparable to what is obtained in three hours of live communication. Psychology says that because of this, some people find it difficult to look into the eyes of their interlocutor for a long time.

Practice not looking away when speaking. This will help you make new friends faster and also build favorable business relationships

Another reason lies in the person whose eyes they look into. This can be very annoying, irritating, and make you nervous. It seems that the interlocutor is trying to “read” you, listening to every word and creating his own personal opinion. It is unlikely that such moments cause positive emotions, and the person tends to quickly look away.

It is very difficult for men or women who seem to deliberately glare with their heavy gaze in order to show, for example, their superiority over their interlocutor. From the very first seconds of such communication it becomes uncomfortable, there is a strong desire to lower your eyes to the floor.

Uncertainty and boredom

Very often, looking away when speaking can be a sign of shyness. With the help of a glance, you can express your attitude towards an object, show interest, and demonstrate a feeling of falling in love. Also, one can read in the gaze that it is difficult for a person to find words for conversation, his nervousness, etc. Therefore, they avert their eyes to the side so as not to tell too much about themselves ahead of time and show themselves not at their best.

Uncertainty and lack of composure also often force people not to look their interlocutor in the eye. Sometimes it can be hard to find mutual language with this or that person, because of which the interlocutor lowers his eyes, begins to nervously finger something in his hands, fidget with his ears or hair, thereby betraying his excitement. Such people are simply not sure that they behave and speak correctly.

Why doesn't a man make eye contact when talking? Psychology of relationships

Why doesn’t the man I really like look me in the eyes when talking? After all, you really want to read in his gaze the whole truth about feelings or the lack thereof.

A woman asks this question more than once. I have an intuition, a sixth sense, that this man likes me. But life experience says that girls are often inclined to wishful thinking. This means that you want concrete confirmation of your feeling. No one wants to be deceived in their own hopes!

No. This is not fiction, and at the first meeting we even had to sit and look into each other’s eyes. I saw obvious curiosity about me as a woman, and not just a new acquaintance. And I was the first to be embarrassed and look away. But how I would like to see the answer to my question again.

Psychology of the male gaze

Most people don't like eye contact during conversations, and the majority of the population is no exception. During normal communication, people do not look closely into the eyes, making do with fleeting glances. Couples in love and people who do not hide their sexual interest are prone to long-term contact.

Communication between men and women, psychology of communication with men
10 ways to hook a man: tricks women use

Additional gestures

Gestures and postures that accompany communication will help you understand a man’s feelings and desires. How he stands and where his hands are at this moment are additional non-verbal signals that help to understand the feelings of the man you like. For example, he does not look his interlocutor in the eyes and performs additional actions:

fiddling with some object in his hands;
touches the earlobe;
touches the nose;
runs his hand through his hair.

If you take his hand at this moment, the situation will become clearer. The guy will calm down and it will become clear that this is an extreme degree of embarrassment for a man in love. A relaxed posture and arms crossed over the chest indicate disinterest and reluctance to make contact. Hands in his pockets and a glance somewhere into the distance indicate boredom or anxiety about his affairs, which he urgently needs to attend to.

Why doesn’t a man look into the eyes, averts them during our casual meetings and short conversations?

We honor what psychologists and men and women themselves say about this, based on their own experience.

- Let's start with the stereotype that when a person does not look his interlocutor in the eyes, it means he is hiding something or wants to deceive. Here you can make the opposite argument: it is the one who wants to deceive who looks closely and for a long time into the eyes. And it's hard to argue with that.
- There is an opinion that a man looks away because of his shyness. He is afraid that the woman will read his feelings for her.
- He hides his gaze because with his embarrassment he wants to “prove” to you that it is not physical intimacy that is important to him, but rather the sincere feelings that have arisen between you. And there is no evil intention in this case.
- He can hide his gaze if he has a wife, and he is interested in you.
How a man behaves with a woman depends on many aspects. And the most important thing is the person’s psychotype. There are people who, in principle, do not look eye to eye.
There's even some advice: look not into the eye, but into the area of the bridge of the nose or ear.
- He is afraid of falling in love, so he averts his eyes! The girl made this 100 percent verdict, relying on her life experience.

So why do you, a man, look away when talking to the woman you like?

Reasons for not wanting eye contact

Blinking his eyes when talking to a woman, he feels confused and has no further course of action. When he looks left and then right (or vice versa), he is confused and tries to find any words. A man gets embarrassed when he meets his eyes if a woman is just a friend to him.

Eyes are incapable of lying - everyone knows this. They connect a person with the world around him and reflect his state of mind. Many people do not want to reveal their soul even to close people, let alone strangers. Those who have something to hide also do not like to make eye contact, for example:

treason;
lie;
desire to separate forever;
your bad mood;
mental pain.

If on a date a man looks away, and it was he who initiated the meeting, the guy is simply shy and timid in the presence of a girl. He fears that she will see the sparkle and desire in his eyes ahead of time and consider them for lust, which is why he hides them from his interlocutor.

Body language will also help to understand the reason why a person does not make eye contact when speaking.

Reasons why a person does not make eye contact

Shyness or lack of self-confidence;
If he wants to hide something, such as affection or love;
The insincerity of his feelings. On the contrary, he may hide something, the fact that he is married, married or other acts;
Heavy look. People who are very powerful have an incredibly heavy gaze that pierces and is unpleasant to others. Cold, seemingly empty, embittered eyes will not please everyone;
Doesn’t want to give information about himself, is used to avoiding answers, often lies;
No interest in the interlocutor, fatigue.

Other reasons:

When there's just nothing left to say

Why doesn't a person make eye contact when talking? Is this a sign of lying, or are there other reasons that explain the situation? Looking straight ahead imposes certain obligations, such as answering honestly a question that has not yet been answered. I don’t want to lie, but I can’t tell the truth either. That is why a man hides his gaze and avoids answering. There could be a lot of reasons. And an open, “honest” look does not always mean that a person is not lying. They hold up just fine when looked at point-blank. Such people are used to it, and their gaze is quite trained.

If you are shy and vulnerable

You should not pay special attention to this fact. Not everyone likes to be in a close environment; many are stressed by crowds and views from all sides. If one is confident in himself, then the other may be in constant turmoil. Therefore, you should not judge by the look and assume that since a person does not look into the eyes, it means that he is lying, in love or wants to deceive. Maybe he's just not confident in himself or doesn't want to show his weaknesses. People are different. Upbringing, habits or character very often leave their mark.

How to get a man to look you in the eyes?

If a person does not look into the eyes, then you can try to look into them furtively. Call for a conversation on an interesting topic, intrigue, ask a difficult question and see the reaction. Many people open up at this time. You can look at his communication with other people. If a person does not make eye contact all the time, perhaps he has such a character. May be stubborn or hide feelings. He cannot control himself all the time, so sooner or later he will be able to look into his eyes. Not all people like to look directly at the other person. Some people generally find direct gaze unpleasant. If a person avoids looking at you, it doesn’t mean that he is hiding something or not saying anything, maybe he just has that style of communication. Most often, people who are shy and unsure of themselves look away. Also, some people do not make eye contact if their parents, bosses are authoritarian, or they have a habit of submission. It’s easier to lower your eyes and tell them “yes” than to hold your gaze.

Or maybe everything is much simpler. If a man doesn’t look you in the eyes, it means he doesn’t plan any relationship.