No desirer after realisation? (was Desire and Free will)

[Guest guest]

Dear Patrick,

 

You make some excellent points and, last night, I already began to draft a

post to agree with all that you said. However, I didn't have time to

complete it so ended up thinking about it again later - and decided I was

still not convinced!

 

"There are thoughts but no thinker and deeds but no doer so why not desires

but no desirer?"

 

This must be true - there is no desirer. And, yes, "There has never yet been

a sadhu who didn't experience hunger pangs if he wasn't fed regularly!" But

is this, strictly speaking, 'desire'? Lack of food would certainly cause

discomfort in the stomach and it doesn't need a sadhu to realise that this

will be relieved by food and that, moreover, food is needed to maintain the

body (even if it is illusory food for an illusory body!). So I feel this is

in the realm of instinctual behaviour of the body. If, despite there not

really being hunger present, we nevertheless want to eat a cream cake then,

yes, *that* is desire but a simple response of providing food when there is

hunger I do not believe counts in this way. After realisation has occurred

that there is no doer, the ego disappears. Hunger will still occur and food

will be eaten in response but there will be no desire for the food. If the

nature of the body-mind was such that it reacted to the sight of a cream

cake with a desire to eat it then, yes, I guess that the prarabdha karma

will mean that this reaction will still occur but would it still be an

effective desire? Who would be having the desire if there is no

identification remaining with the body-mind? It would simply be the final

playing out of cause and effect (with no free will!).

 

But then you say "But there is nothing more going on here than the play of

the gunas or 'an ongoing cause-effect playing out in prakR^iti' as you put

it." So perhaps we do really agree after all!

 

Dennis

 

 

<<<<<<<*********************************************************************

*******

Dear Denis,

 

As I understand it desire is an appetite of which we are conscious and

hunger is the prototypical example. As such I can't see how it

'belongs to the ego' or is an 'illusion' or a 'limitation'. There has

never yet been a sadhu who didn't experience hunger pangs if he wasn't

fed regularly!

 

Your statement that 'desire ... will continue to be experienced until

the last remnant of egoistic rebellion has been removed' doesn't quite

make sense for the reason that the ego is not there to begin with and

so is not capable of rebellion. All that can be removed is a mistaken

belief in the existence of the ego. Would you really maintain that

changing this belief would cause all desires to cease?

 

I don't think that there is any need to labor the problematic aspects

of desire. It clearly entails more ego-identification than other

mental processes such as (say) thinking and nobody disputes that a

predominance of rajas obscures buddhi. But there is nothing more going

on here than the play of the gunas or 'an ongoing

cause-effect playing out in prakR^iti' as you put it. So I don't see

why desire should be singled out for special opprobrium. There are

thoughts but no thinker and deeds but no doer so why not desires but

no desirer?

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

***************************************************************************>

>>>>>>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis

 

you statement that

> Who would be having the desire if there is no

> identification remaining with the body-mind? It would simply be the

final

> playing out of cause and effect (with no free will!).

 

suggests that indeed we are fundamentally in agreement. But it would

be a shame to snuff out such an interesting thread through and excess

of conviviality. So, since you appear to be dissatisfied with me

definition of desire, let me press you for yours.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis, Patrick:

 

Using the search Engine at http://www.escribe.com (I strongly

recommend everyone to use this facility to get quick review of

materials on the same thread or by the same other or by using a key

word)I reviewed the entire discussions on this topic.

 

This reply is based on my understanding of the discussions and

fundamentally I have no quarrel with your arguments. I agree that it

is possible to derive parallel conclusions after appropriate

adjustments to the definitions and framework. As Sadaji rightly

pointed out that all disagreements are in the use of terminology and

their defintions. It is conceptually possible to arrive at the same

conclusion using different framework and definitions. With the

use of the logic of 'cause and effect' and with appropriate

understanding of 'desire' and 'desirer' we can resolve the puzzles.

 

I am looking forward to see how you two reconcile your differences on

the definition of 'desire.' Since we are more comfortable with the

(philosophical) music tuned according to our tradition, I am inclined

not to sing but listen!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , pkenny@c... wrote:

>

> Dear Dennis

> ......

> suggests that indeed we are fundamentally in agreement. But it would

> be a shame to snuff out such an interesting thread

> through and excess

> of conviviality. So, since you appear to be dissatisfied with me

> definition of desire, let me press you for yours.

>

> Regards,

>

> Patrick

[Guest guest]

advaitin , "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

 

Dear Dennis,

 

In asking you for your definition of Desire, I was hoping to draw you

out on the distinction you seem to be making between hunger and the

desire for cream cakes. I'm not satisfied with your answer

because it is clear that real hunger (starvation) is much more likely

to entail ego-identification or a 'recognition of a lack in ourselves'

than is a gratuitous desire for cream cakes.

 

By relegating hunger to the 'realm of instinctual behaviour of the

body' aren't you slipping into a mind-body dualism? I need hardly

remind you that Advaita deals with this pitfall by classifying the

mind (buddhi as well as manas) together with the body as prakriti.

>From this point of view there can be no essential difference between

desires which are 'of the body' and those which are 'of the mind'.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

 

> body (even if it is illusory food for an illusory body!). So I feel

this is

> in the realm of instinctual behaviour of the body. If, despite there

not

> really being hunger present, we nevertheless want to eat a cream

cake then,

> yes, *that* is desire but a simple response of providing food when

there is

> hunger I do not believe counts in this way. After realisation has

occurred

> that there is no doer, the ego disappears. Hunger will still occur

and food

> will be eaten in response but there will be no desire for the food.

If the

> nature of the body-mind was such that it reacted to the sight of a

cream

> cake with a desire to eat it then, yes, I guess that the prarabdha

karma

> will mean that this reaction will still occur but would it still be

an

> effective desire? Who would be having the desire if there is no

> identification remaining with the body-mind? It would simply be the

final

> playing out of cause and effect (with no free will!).

>

> But then you say "But there is nothing more going on here than the

play of

> the gunas or 'an ongoing cause-effect playing out in prakR^iti' as

you put

> it." So perhaps we do really agree after all!

>

> Dennis

>

>

>

<<<<<<<*******************************************

**************************

> *******

> Dear Denis,

>

> As I understand it desire is an appetite of which we are conscious

and

> hunger is the prototypical example. As such I can't see how it

> 'belongs to the ego' or is an 'illusion' or a 'limitation'. There

has

> never yet been a sadhu who didn't experience hunger pangs if he

wasn't

> fed regularly!

>

> Your statement that 'desire ... will continue to be experienced

until

> the last remnant of egoistic rebellion has been removed' doesn't

quite

> make sense for the reason that the ego is not there to begin with

and

> so is not capable of rebellion. All that can be removed is a

mistaken

> belief in the existence of the ego. Would you really maintain that

> changing this belief would cause all desires to cease?

>

> I don't think that there is any need to labor the problematic

aspects

> of desire. It clearly entails more ego-identification than other

> mental processes such as (say) thinking and nobody disputes that a

> predominance of rajas obscures buddhi. But there is nothing more

going

> on here than the play of the gunas or 'an ongoing

> cause-effect playing out in prakR^iti' as you put it. So I don't see

> why desire should be singled out for special opprobrium. There are

> thoughts but no thinker and deeds but no doer so why not desires but

> no desirer?

>

> Regards,

>

> Patrick

>

**************************************************

*************************>

> >>>>>>