Guest guest Posted December 8, 1999 Report Share Posted December 8, 1999 dear sir, thanks for the clarification.i think i get you now.imho,desire arises in our mind because of ignorance --in the gita i think there's a shloka which clearly explains the process by which desire leads to all sorts of complications. the case of ishwara is altogether different-there is not much to be gained by comparing our empirical existence with ishwara. i think you are saying that desire per se' is not binding--but how difficult it is to make the distinction between desire and attachment to it.it can also be said that the svabhava of desire is to bind--i.e.,that which binds is desire. of course--good desire;unselfish desire is anyday better than selfish desire,rather unselfish desire is not a desire at all.the desire to attain desirelessness cannot be termed a desire.it is anyday better to have good desire---that is; use desire in it's constructive sense---which is what i feel was your central thing--which is very correct. but i still feel that it is better not to glorify desire in any way in this age and thus give an excuse to the mind to indulge in lower pleasures;rather, it is best to concentrate on reaching desirelessness---which is in fact --A VERY GOOD DESIRE. om. >"Jaishankar Narayanan" <jaishankar_n >advaitin >advaitin > The Capacity to Desire is a Privilege >Wed, 08 Dec 1999 11:46:47 IST > >Dear Friends, > >Shri. G.Murthy and Shri. Devendra Vyas have raised some objections to my >earlier post. I wish to clarify certain points here. > >Shri. Murthy has quoted a few verses from Bhagavad Gita which portray >Desire >as an enemy of oneself. Now we have to analyse and see when desire becomes >one's enemy because in other places Bhagavan himself says he is manifest as >Desire. The Upanishads also when talking about creation say that 'Isvara >desired' before manifesting as this manifold world. If we look into >Shankara's Taittiriya Upanishad Bhasyam it becomes clear. In the >Anandavalli >when commenting on the sentence 'so (a)KAmayata' Shankara raises an >objection 'how Brahman can have desire'. Then He answers that Brahman can >have desires because Brahman is independent of Desires and need not >fulfill >any desires to become happy. He says Brahman's desire is pure(Shuddha) >which >means it is non-binding. > >So from this we understand that Desires which are binding alone are >portrayed as enemies to oneself. If one understands that one need not >fulfill any desires to be happy one can have any amount desires. These >desires will only be for the good of the world. Thats why a jnani like >Shankara can set up Mutts, travel up and down the country and write huge >commentaries. I was only trying to point out that Desire by itself is not a >problem and it is infact a manifestation of Isvara's Shakthi (Iccha >Shakti). >But we should not allow it to become binding when it becomes a problem. > >So all the quotations given by Shri. Murthy are only addressing >Binding-Desires ( Desires which make one feel that one cannot be happy >without fulfilling them.) Desires are binding only due to the ignorance of >one's own nature. If one knows oneself as the whole (Purna) and limitless >(Ananta) then one need not fulfill any desire to be happy. Such a person is >called Krtakritya (One who has accomplished all that is to be >accomplished). >That person can have any number of desires but they wont bind him. > >But nowadays lot of people think that desiring itself is a problem and they >are having unnecessary guilt and complexes. I want to show that our >shastras >do not say that. They only point out that binding desires are a problem and >show us the way to get out of the bondage. > >with love and prayers, > >Jaishankar. > >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives >are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email >Address: advaitins > ><< text3.html >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 1999 Report Share Posted December 8, 1999 Dear Friends, Shri. G.Murthy and Shri. Devendra Vyas have raised some objections to my earlier post. I wish to clarify certain points here. Shri. Murthy has quoted a few verses from Bhagavad Gita which portray Desire as an enemy of oneself. Now we have to analyse and see when desire becomes one's enemy because in other places Bhagavan himself says he is manifest as Desire. The Upanishads also when talking about creation say that 'Isvara desired' before manifesting as this manifold world. If we look into Shankara's Taittiriya Upanishad Bhasyam it becomes clear. In the Anandavalli when commenting on the sentence 'so (a)KAmayata' Shankara raises an objection 'how Brahman can have desire'. Then He answers that Brahman can have desires because Brahman is independent of Desires and need not fulfill any desires to become happy. He says Brahman's desire is pure(Shuddha) which means it is non-binding. So from this we understand that Desires which are binding alone are portrayed as enemies to oneself. If one understands that one need not fulfill any desires to be happy one can have any amount desires. These desires will only be for the good of the world. Thats why a jnani like Shankara can set up Mutts, travel up and down the country and write huge commentaries. I was only trying to point out that Desire by itself is not a problem and it is infact a manifestation of Isvara's Shakthi (Iccha Shakti). But we should not allow it to become binding when it becomes a problem. So all the quotations given by Shri. Murthy are only addressing Binding-Desires ( Desires which make one feel that one cannot be happy without fulfilling them.) Desires are binding only due to the ignorance of one's own nature. If one knows oneself as the whole (Purna) and limitless (Ananta) then one need not fulfill any desire to be happy. Such a person is called Krtakritya (One who has accomplished all that is to be accomplished). That person can have any number of desires but they wont bind him. But nowadays lot of people think that desiring itself is a problem and they are having unnecessary guilt and complexes. I want to show that our shastras do not say that. They only point out that binding desires are a problem and show us the way to get out of the bondage. with love and prayers, Jaishankar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 1999 Report Share Posted December 8, 1999 >"Devendra Vyas" <dev_vyas74 > >of course--good desire;unselfish desire is anyday better than selfish >desire,rather unselfish desire is not a desire at all.the desire to attain >desirelessness cannot be termed a desire. Of course it can! A desire is a desire - whether it's a desire to save the world or a desire for sex. >it is anyday better to have good >desire---that is; use desire in it's constructive sense---which is what i >feel was your central thing--which is very correct. This is all pure dualism. You can't divide desires into "good" and "bad". The only question, as the other gentleman pointed out, is whether or not you're attached to the satisfaction of the desire. >but i still feel that it is better not to glorify desire in any way in this >age and thus give an excuse to the mind to indulge in lower >pleasures; You would rather have us indulge in "higher" pleasures, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 1999 Report Share Posted December 8, 1999 I dont believe that a Jnani has desires like us. He has good tendencies which have not been destroyed. Refer to Swami Vivekananda's allegory , that even if you switch off the motor, the wheel continues to turn due to its previous association with the motor. Similarly the Jnani lives in the body because he still has a purpose left in the world. However he does not do anything, He does not desire. These proceed SPONTANEOUSLY out of him because his ego is destroyed and it is God who works through him. That is the whole concept of an avatara. The Jnani appears to enjoy and suffer like us, but he does not have any suffering or enjoyment.He is nitya muktha (eternally free). However, for us, Sri Ramakrishna says turn all your desires Godward. Or Sri Ramana Maharshi may ask "Who is it who has desires" ? Anand On Wed, 08 Dec 1999 11:46:47 Jaishankar Narayanan wrote: >"Jaishankar Narayanan" <jaishankar_n > >Dear Friends, > >Shri. G.Murthy and Shri. Devendra Vyas have raised some objections to my >earlier post. I wish to clarify certain points here. > >Shri. Murthy has quoted a few verses from Bhagavad Gita which portray Desire >as an enemy of oneself. Now we have to analyse and see when desire becomes >one's enemy because in other places Bhagavan himself says he is manifest as >Desire. The Upanishads also when talking about creation say that 'Isvara >desired' before manifesting as this manifold world. If we look into >Shankara's Taittiriya Upanishad Bhasyam it becomes clear. In the Anandavalli >when commenting on the sentence 'so (a)KAmayata' Shankara raises an >objection 'how Brahman can have desire'. Then He answers that Brahman can >have desires because Brahman is independent of Desires and need not fulfill >any desires to become happy. He says Brahman's desire is pure(Shuddha) which >means it is non-binding. > >So from this we understand that Desires which are binding alone are >portrayed as enemies to oneself. If one understands that one need not >fulfill any desires to be happy one can have any amount desires. These >desires will only be for the good of the world. Thats why a jnani like >Shankara can set up Mutts, travel up and down the country and write huge >commentaries. I was only trying to point out that Desire by itself is not a >problem and it is infact a manifestation of Isvara's Shakthi (Iccha Shakti). >But we should not allow it to become binding when it becomes a problem. > >So all the quotations given by Shri. Murthy are only addressing >Binding-Desires ( Desires which make one feel that one cannot be happy >without fulfilling them.) Desires are binding only due to the ignorance of >one's own nature. If one knows oneself as the whole (Purna) and limitless >(Ananta) then one need not fulfill any desire to be happy. Such a person is >called Krtakritya (One who has accomplished all that is to be accomplished). >That person can have any number of desires but they wont bind him. > >But nowadays lot of people think that desiring itself is a problem and they >are having unnecessary guilt and complexes. I want to show that our shastras >do not say that. They only point out that binding desires are a problem and >show us the way to get out of the bondage. > >with love and prayers, > >Jaishankar. > >>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email Address: advaitins > > A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology Network. Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 1999 Report Share Posted December 8, 1999 dear sir, thanks for your inputs.i still believe that a "desire" to reach the desireless state is not a desire truly-it is in name only.that is--the desire for self-realization is not a desire as we take the meaning of desire.how can the light that dispels darkness be darkness itself? yes ,sir ;i am a small man -still caught up in dualism--i am no paramhansa :good,bad,pleasure,pain still hold me under their sway---nice to know that there is at least one paramhansa in this list who is above "ALL PURE DUALISM",above all relativity. i prefer to walk from where i am rather than talk from where i am not. god bless.om. >"Warren E. Donley" <wedonley >advaitin ><advaitin > >Re: The Capacity to Desire is a Privilege >Wed, 8 Dec 1999 08:53:09 -0500 > > >"Devendra Vyas" <dev_vyas74 > > > >of course--good desire;unselfish desire is anyday better than selfish > >desire,rather unselfish desire is not a desire at all.the desire to >attain > >desirelessness cannot be termed a desire. > >Of course it can! A desire is a desire - whether it's a desire to save the >world or a desire for sex. > > >it is anyday better to have good > >desire---that is; use desire in it's constructive sense---which is what i > >feel was your central thing--which is very correct. > >This is all pure dualism. You can't divide desires into "good" and "bad". >The only question, as the other gentleman pointed out, is whether or not >you're attached to the satisfaction of the desire. > > >but i still feel that it is better not to glorify desire in any way in >this > >age and thus give an excuse to the mind to indulge in lower > >pleasures; > >You would rather have us indulge in "higher" pleasures, then? > > > > >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives >are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email >Address: advaitins > ><< text3.html >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 1999 Report Share Posted December 9, 1999 Hari Om: Now that we have established our desire to discuss, I want to continue my desire to express more of my thoughts. Coming from India, I find an analogy between desires and mosquitos: They are plenty everywhere and they are inevitable. There are varieties of mosquitos and desires. As long as they (both mosquitos and desires) are around, sooner or later they are going to bite! Also they are likely to be around us all the time and consequently, we have to learn to protect us from their menace. Science tried its level to eradicate the mosquitos but they didn't succeed and in all probability, they will never succeed! But Science invented several methods to protect us from the mosquito bites. The most prudent method is to "detach us from mosquitos," and achieve it by spreading mosquito nets around us. Now coming back to ‘desires,' the most effective way is to conduct actions with detachment - conducting actions with the Yagna spirit. Actions become spontaneous and the Yagna spirit spreads a net around the mind and protects it from the bites of desires. With human means, we can reduce the ill effects of desires and it is impossible to get rid of the desires. Divine intervention is necessary and Grace is the fundamental ingredient for Self-realization. It is always present and we are not aware of its presence due to our ignorance. Regards, Ram Chandran Note: For all the animals, we construct a cage around them in Zoos and Circuses. However, for mosquitos, we have to build a cage around us (mosquito net). This may explain why we need special attention while handling ‘desires.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 1999 Report Share Posted December 9, 1999 Devendra, My apologies that my response to your post seems to have caused offense. This was not my intention. No personal insult to you was meant in any way, I was simply expressing an opposing viewpoint - too sharply, it seems. >nice to know that >there is at least one paramhansa in this list who is above "ALL PURE >DUALISM",above all relativity. Who would that be? :-) W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 1999 Report Share Posted December 9, 1999 dear warren,pl. don't apologise and embarass me.i only wanted to stress the point that while advaita is very easy for talk and intellectual satisfaction........to live up to it even in a small measure is not child's play-before approaching non-duality let us be frank enough to admit that we are all in duality,in greater or smaller way.no wonder the ancients shut themselves off in caves and underwent great austerities to arrive at the one truth and overcome duality--the task is indeed herculean. >"Warren E. Donley" <wedonley >advaitin ><advaitin > >Re: The Capacity to Desire is a Privilege >Thu, 9 Dec 1999 14:32:23 -0500 > >Devendra, > >My apologies that my response to your post seems to have caused offense. >This was not my intention. No personal insult to you was meant in any way, >I >was simply expressing an opposing viewpoint - too sharply, it seems. > > >nice to know that > >there is at least one paramhansa in this list who is above "ALL PURE > >DUALISM",above all relativity. > > >Who would that be? :-) > >W > > >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives >are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email >Address: advaitins > ><< text3.html >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 1999 Report Share Posted December 9, 1999 dear sir, i think my language was quite simple and my meaning clear--you are free to draw your own conclusions.rgds-devendra. >"Max Harris" <max_harris >advaitin >advaitin >RE: Re: The Capacity to Desire is a Privilege >Thu, 9 Dec 1999 21:38:44 -0800 > >Namaste, Devendra Vyas. > > > . . while advaita is very easy for talk and intellectual > >satisfaction........to live up to it even in a small measure is not >child's > >play-before approaching non-duality let us be frank enough to admit that >we > >are all in duality,in greater or smaller way. > >Please correct me if you think I am mistaken, >but isn't it the case that "we" never "overcome duality"; >that we may recognize the truth of nonduality >and may attain intimacy of being with Ishwara/Brahman, >but as long as "we" are we are the subjective side of >a duality, with all that we experience on the objective side; >and that when 'duality is overcome', only Brahman is? > >And therefore no one who has spoken on this matter >has spoken from nonduality, but rather from >an intense intimacy with Brahman, like a self-reflective >thought that is intimate with the self reflected in it. > >For without duality there is no speaking and no hearing. > >Namaste, >-- Max > >--------------------------- >DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com >FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net > >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives >are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email >Address: advaitins > ><< text3.html >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 1999 Report Share Posted December 9, 1999 Namaste, Devendra Vyas. > . . while advaita is very easy for talk and intellectual >satisfaction........to live up to it even in a small measure is not child's >play-before approaching non-duality let us be frank enough to admit that we >are all in duality,in greater or smaller way. Please correct me if you think I am mistaken, but isn't it the case that "we" never "overcome duality"; that we may recognize the truth of nonduality and may attain intimacy of being with Ishwara/Brahman, but as long as "we" are we are the subjective side of a duality, with all that we experience on the objective side; and that when 'duality is overcome', only Brahman is? And therefore no one who has spoken on this matter has spoken from nonduality, but rather from an intense intimacy with Brahman, like a self-reflective thought that is intimate with the self reflected in it. For without duality there is no speaking and no hearing. Namaste, -- Max --------------------------- DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.