Guest guest Posted January 20, 2001 Report Share Posted January 20, 2001 Dear Patrick, By all means, let's be thoroughly disagreeable! :>) I had a quick look to see if I could find an amenable definition of desire but failed, so I'll have to make it up as I go along. Desire is the subconscious recognition of a lack in ourselves together with the mistaken belief that the desired object will fulfil that need and somehow make us whole again. At the moment that the desired object is obtained, the desire itself goes away, leaving what was always there, obscured by the desire - happiness. Unfortunately this is usually quickly covered over again by the next desire. It is not the attainment of the objective that gives us happiness but the removal of the desire, the ignorance that was obscuring our true nature. This is why, once our nature is fully realised, there is no further desire since we then always know that we are whole. Dennis >>>>>>>>>>>>>Your statement that > It would simply be the final > playing out of cause and effect (with no free will!). suggests to me that we may well be fundamentally in agreement. But we shouldn't let an interesting thread like this be snuffed out by an excess of conviviality. So let me press you for your definition of desire. (Mine is taken from Spinoza: `appetite together with the consciousness thereof'). <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2001 Report Share Posted January 20, 2001 Namaste, At the risk of intruding on the convivially 'disagreeable' dialogue, may I refer the readers to the analysis that Gita offers, especially in the 16th Chapter, under the terms 'daivii [divine] and aasurii [demonic] sampat [wealth]'. Desire for knowledge, for the welfare of all creation, etc. are 'saatvik' desires. Anger, greed, covetousness, indulgence and craving in sensual excesses, working with the aim of fulfilling personal interests only, etc. are 'raajasik' desires. Total disregard for the welfare at any cost of any but oneself, etc. is 'taamasic' desire. To the extent that one strives to eliminate or counter the latter two, and promote the first kind ["dharmaaviruddho kaamaH', ie. desire that promotes the first, one can be said to have progressed spiritually. In sanskrit, the 'loss of desire' of a realised person is termed niHspR^ihaH, nishhkaama, audaasiinya, triguNaatiita, etc. Since every aspect of 'creation' emanates from one's own Self, every action of such an individual becomes a spontaneous out- or over- flow of love with no desire for recompense. Regards, s. advaitin , "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote: > > Desire is the subconscious recognition of a lack in ourselves together with > the mistaken belief that the desired object will fulfil that need and > somehow make us whole again. At the moment that the desired object is > obtained, the desire itself goes away, leaving what was always there, > obscured by the desire - happiness. Unfortunately this is usually quickly > covered over again by the next desire. It is not the attainment of the > objective that gives us happiness but the removal of the desire, the > ignorance that was obscuring our true nature. This is why, once our nature > is fully realised, there is no further desire since we then always know that > we are whole. > > Dennis > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Your statement that > > > It would simply be the final > > playing out of cause and effect (with no free will!). > > suggests to me that we may well be fundamentally in agreement. But we > shouldn't let an interesting thread like this be snuffed out by an > excess of conviviality. So let me press you for your definition of > desire. (Mine is taken from Spinoza: `appetite together with the > consciousness thereof'). <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2001 Report Share Posted January 20, 2001 Dennis wrote: >I had a quick look to see if I could find an amenable definition of desire >but failed, so I'll have to make it up as I go along. > >Desire is the subconscious recognition of a lack in ourselves together with >the mistaken belief that the desired object will fulfil that need and >somehow make us whole again. At the moment that the desired object is >obtained, the desire itself goes away, leaving what was always there, >obscured by the desire - happiness. Unfortunately this is usually quickly >covered over again by the next desire. Dennis there is something else in addition to what happens as part of the process - the desire which is source of ignorance - that ignorence gets confirmed by the happiness we experience. the subconsicous mind concluded that fulment of desire is the way to go to find happiness. This later manifest to reapeat the experience to get the same happiness. Hence man hunts for one experience to another searching for the happiness. Hence the next desire, due to same subconscious recognision of lack of ourselves or lack in ourselves arises. The vasaana-s initiate desires in the intellect level and agitations at the mind level and actions at the body level. This is what that puts in viscious circle - Hence fulfilling of desire is equated to pouring ghee into the fire to put it out. It will only intensify the desires. In stead one is recommended to sublimate the desire - that is where karma yoga comes in with iiswara arpita buddi - offering our desire prompted actions to alter of God. This has an effect of neutralizing the desires with out resulting new ones. In a way, thorn to remove the thorn. Hari OM! Sadanadna It is not the attainment of the >objective that gives us happiness but the removal of the desire, the >ignorance that was obscuring our true nature. This is why, once our nature >is fully realised, there is no further desire since we then always know >that we are whole. > >Dennis > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Your statement that > > > It would simply be the final > playing out of cause and effect (with no >free will!). > >suggests to me that we may well be fundamentally in agreement. But we >shouldn't let an interesting thread like this be snuffed out by an excess >of conviviality. So let me press you for your definition of desire. (Mine >is taken from Spinoza: `appetite together with the consciousness thereof'). ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > > > _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2001 Report Share Posted January 22, 2001 Dear Patrick, I think I am going to have to back track a little, partly because I think we are going down a non-productive path and partly because I seem to be losing the argument! Looking back at an earlier post, I said, "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?" I now affirm that, yes, it would be an 'effective desire'. However, the crucial difference between the occurrence before and the one after, is that there would be no attachment to the idea after - it would simply be observed as an event affecting the body-mind. The 'egotistic' element of the event would no longer be there. The same would apply to the state of hunger, no matter how intense. The body-mind would react to the situation as before but any associated discomfort or even pain would simply be observed. Of course there would be a response if possible - to eat something - but it would be known to be simply the movement of the guuNaa; it would be known that there is no doer. So, yes, I concede that there is no effective difference between desire and hunger in this respect. (And, as indicated above, I don't think it worth pursuing the details of what the differences actually are.) Are we now fully (well almost!) in agreement? Regards, Dennis <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2001 Report Share Posted January 23, 2001 pkenny wrote: > > it is easy to learn to view your desires > in a detached way without ever having to posit a desirer. yes! and because the desirer is not the dream of a separative ego, but none other than brahman Itself! if the implications of this don't become in fact **overwhelmingly obvious** in the first chapters of rg veda, i'll eat all the hats in existence!! and i'm not kidding. anyone wanna take me on on this? c'mon!.. i'm ready! OM ramanarapanamasthu! OM namah sivaya! OM svaha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2001 Report Share Posted January 23, 2001 Dear Dennis, To tell you the truth I'm still in two minds about whether we actually agree with each other (and I suspect that you are too!). My reason for taking you to task was that, as far as I can see, there was a suggestion in some of your posts that ego-identification or the perception of a lack in onself was *necessarily* involved in desire. This raised my hackles because it seems to suggest that the bondage of ego is inescapble in principle (since I for one can't imagine how human life is possible without desire). And of course it flies in the face of the idea of karma yoga. I wonder if you agree with me about this: in order for karma yoga to work, that is, in order to attain the goal of action with attachment to the fruits of action, it is necessary to learn to see your desires (all of them, without excepetion) as operating mechanistically in the domain of prakriti? My guess is that this is the reason why the author of the Gita imported non-brahmanical samkhya psychology into the Gita. (There is little if any mention of samkhya or emphahsis on karma yoga in the Upanishads.) Like you I was very impressed by Libet's experiments when I first learned of them because it seems to me that they point the way towards a detached understanding of desire which is fully consistent withe the outlook of samkhya psychology. What I mean is that if you grant that desire is 'appetite together with the consciousness thereof' and you interpret Libet's results as saying that appetite appears first and consciousness of the appetite only arises *after* the fact then it is easy to learn to view your desires in a detached way without ever having to posit a desirer. Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2001 Report Share Posted January 23, 2001 advaitin , f maiello <egodust@d...> wrote: > pkenny@c... wrote: > > > > it is easy to learn to view your desires > > in a detached way without ever having to posit a desirer. > > > yes! and because the desirer is not the dream of a > separative ego, but none other than brahman Itself! Cute! > > if the implications of this don't become in fact > **overwhelmingly obvious** in the first chapters > of rg veda, i'll eat all the hats in existence!! Can you share the passages which illuminate? (if you have time) The question would then be whether we are filtering desire through our conditioning or a clear lens .. (imo) .. So what does it take to cleanse the lens pure consciousness shines through? Alignment with a beautiful Guru? Meditation? ~ Study? And choice? ~ Transpersonal psychology? ~ Creativity? ~ What does it take to wake to the unconditioned as Unconditional Love? :-) Peace & cookies, Col > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2001 Report Share Posted January 23, 2001 colette wrote: > > f maiello wrote: > > > ...the desirer is not the dream of a > > separative ego, but none other than brahman Itself! > > if the implications of this don't become in fact > > **overwhelmingly obvious** in the first chapters > > of rg veda, i'll eat all the hats in existence!! > > Can you share the passages which illuminate? (if you have time) no! (just kidding :-) actually, as luck would have it, the website that disseminated such seems no longer online. http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/rig_veda.html i believe ramji originally posted this url to the list. maybe it's all *his* fault that it went down.. :-) > > The question would then be whether we are filtering desire through our > conditioning or a clear lens .. (imo) .. > > So what does it take to cleanse the lens pure consciousness shines > through? > > Alignment with a beautiful Guru? > > Meditation? ~ > > Study? > > And choice? ~ > > Transpersonal psychology? ~ > > Creativity? ~ any and/or all the above. especially, as sri uarelove posted the other day, the sustained effort of self-enquiry ("who am i?"), is probably the best way to clean the lens. > > What does it take to wake to the unconditioned as Unconditional Love? > to my understanding, it's a matter of grace on one hand and a host of unknowable factors on the other, having to do with karma, mumuksha (desire for liberation), etc.. peace in Love, frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 advaitin , f maiello <egodust@d...> wrote: > colette@b... wrote: > > > > f maiello wrote: > > the sustained effort of self-enquiry > ("who am i?"), is probably the best way to clean the lens. You know it's funny Frank but I think that even those who don't particularly follow the Ramana style of who am I enquiry still have that natural question within .. ... as duality seeking union with the Beloved .. It's just natural don't you think? I do. And naturally you presume you are going to find some thing! Yet ... hmmmm ... lols) love, Col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 advaitin , f maiello <egodust@d...> wrote: > colette@b... wrote: > > actually, as luck would have it, the website that > disseminated such seems no longer online. > http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/rig_veda.html > i believe ramji originally posted this url to the list. > maybe it's all *his* fault that it went down.. :-) > > Namaste Frankji, Are you perhaps referring to this URL: http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/news97_8.html Regards, s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 Dear Frankji, Colettji: Most of the time, we can't access a given website due to 'avidya' which include typos, change of Website address, etc. I noticed a typo in the earlier site address: it should have been rig_veda.html instead of rig veda.html. Correct Website Address is: http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/rig_veda.html (The Rig Veda A Selection of Verses from 3700BC. Sunderji's quick reply with an alternate site address also will work) Let me suggest some additional sites for Coletteji and others who are intersted in articles related to Rig Veda. Advaitin archives contain the excellent articles by H.B. Dave on Rig Veda on subject: "RigVeda and the Indian Systems of Approaches to the One" For example: <http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m5504.html> Another good reference is the Himalayan Academy Website shown below. The title of the work is: `The Vedic Experience" by Professor Raimon Panikkar http://www.himalayanacademy.com/books/vedic_experience/VEIndex.html Finally, I have included several paragraphs describing the role of Sraddha (From Professor Panikkar's homepage on the Vedic Experience, Part I: Chapter E: Emerging Life - Shraddha (Faith with conviction and discipline). This Vedic faith is quite essential if we want to understand Shankara's Advaita Philosophy clearly and precisely. Vedic faith doesn't support blind faith and I believe it is the correct approach to any enquiry. As a matter of fact, even scientific enquiries can't begin without any faith. (Einstein once said: "Religion without science is blind and science without religion is vein") Let us invoke this `Sraddha' whole heartedly at the beginning of our enquiry. I whole heartedly agree with the assessment of St. Augustine when he said: "Faith is to believe what we don't see and its reward is to see what we believe deeply in our hearts." Those read the following paragraphs with `faith in their hearts' will be able to see and appreciate the spirit behind Advaita Vedanata Philosophy. regards, Ram Chandran ============================================== Vedic faith is not primarily an intellectual assent, for if it were it would be subservient to the "thing" to which assent is made with the mind. Nor is it a kind of blind trust in certain superhuman beings. We have examples of hymns expressing not only doubt but what some today would call unbelief.139 Vedic faith is, furthermore, not a result or a product of the will; thus there is no stress on the moral responsibility of the believer. It is rather a quality of the full human being; it is something given to or rather grafted into his being. Man is endowed with faith as he is endowed with other human qualities. For this reason, there are ultimately as many types of faith as there are types of Men, or even as there are human beings.140 Vedic faith is previous to thinking and anterior to willing and deciding. It is precisely faith that makes thinking possible, for faith offers the unthought ground out of which thinking can emerge. It is faith that makes moral and other decisions possible, opening to us the horizon against which our actions become meaningful. Any action performed without faith is only an instinctive or automatic movement, without any truly human content; it can hardly be called a truly human action. You act with faith when you act from such a depth that hesitation is not possible, when you are sure that what you are doing is what you are doing, that is, when you perform an action that springs up from your inmost self and not from a whispered external influence. The Man of doubt perishes; he, in fact, destroys himself. It is not intellectual hesitation we are now talking about, or indecision of the will. It is the main and central thrust of the human being which is our theme here. The word of the Bhagavad Gita quoted below is self-exp1anatory: it is the doubt penetrating the very heart of the atman which is lethal. Faith is not made up of those beliefs about which you can entertain intellectual doubt; faith is made of those convictions that are rooted so deeply in your own being that you are not conscious of them; faith is the first emanation of life, as we shall read in one text; faith is the hidden root of Man out of which real human growth proceeds; faith is rooted in the heart and is composed of the heart's intention, the heart being the symbol for the core of Man. This faith is expressed in beliefs and actions which, when they come directly from that inner source, can be called authentic; otherwise they are make-believe, pseudo actions which shoot wide of their mark. Faith is authentic human existence. 2000 HimalayanAcademy This website is a public service of Himalayan Academy. All rights are reserved. The information herein may be used to share the Hindu Dharma with others on the spiritual path, but no part, except where explicitly stated, may be reprinted, reposted, broadcast or re-used in any way without the prior written consent of Himalayan Academy. ====================================== advaitin , f maiello <egodust@d...> wrote: > > actually, as luck would have it, the website that > disseminated such seems no longer online. > http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/rig_veda.html > i believe ramji originally posted this url to the list. > maybe it's all *his* fault that it went down.. :-) > > frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 Ram Chandran wrote: > > I noticed a typo > in the earlier site address: it should have been rig_veda.html instead > of rig veda.html. Correct Website Address is: > > http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/rig_veda.html hariH OM! ramji and coletteji- actually this *wasn't* the website i had in mind afterall. it's another one in fact that ramji had posted to the List: which website disseminates a composite translation of all the vedas (not only the rig veda)... http://www.hinduismtoday.kauai.hi.us/books/vedic_experience/VEIndex.html and to find the section i was referring to, viz. the state of the so-called Night of Brahma, being the suspended interlude or pralaya between the Days of Brahma (manvantara-s or Manifestations): click on "Chapter A - Prelude" then scroll down to headings: "Solitude," and then "Sacrifice." namaste, frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2001 Report Share Posted January 24, 2001 Dear Patrick, I understand what you are saying now (!) and I believe we *do* agree; there's just a slight confusion with the words we are using! You are right, I did say that the ego was involved in desire *before there is enlightenment*. After enlightnement, there is still desire but now this is seen detachedly as a cause-effect mechanism that is happening in the body-mind. There is no longer any sense of 'I' desire because there is no longer any ego. I do not see any conflict in this. Karma yoga is only a meaningful idea whilst there remains a sense of an 'I' to reap the benefits. What you say about Libet and Spinoza is useful because it enables the intellect to grasp that what is being said above is not altogether ridiculous! (i.e. it satisfies the ego that is searching for 'understanding'.) Regards, Dennis 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.