Pleasure never?

[Guest guest]

Namaste all:

 

Here is a proposal for a topic that is of great interest to

me. Several times Sri Ram has reminded us of the 'dangers' of the

senses and of pleasure. What exactly is this danger? Should

pleasure be avoided as much as possible? Or is it merely a matter of

moderation? Can pleasure even be absorbed into realization with the

proper 'attitude'? I must confess that I do love anything that has

sugar in it!

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

The question is raised re sensual pleasures.

 

sanatsujAtIyam is a part of the udyoga parva of mahAbhArata

and is the teaching by sage sanatkumAra to king dhritarAShTra.

shri shankara wrote bhAShya on this part of mahAbhArata. In this

bhAShya, there is mention of the subject of our discussion.

The verse from sanatsujAtIyam goes like this:

 

pramAdAdvA asurAH parAbhavan.h

apramAdAd brahmabhUtAH surAshca

na vai mr^ityurvyAghra ivAtti jantUn

Apasya rUpamupalbhyate hi

 

asurA-s got defeated (and go from birth to death to birth) by

pramAdam (brahmAtmabhAva-cyuti). surA-s attained brahman through

apramAdam (brahmAtmaikya-bhAvam). [The reference here is to

chAndogya upanishad and virocana and Indra going to prajApati

for learning AtmavidyA]. Mrityu (death) does not devour creatures

like a tiger. It (mrityu) does not have a form.

 

Commenting on this verse, shri shankara defines who are asurA-s

and who are surA-s.

 

asuShu ramyanta ityasurAH: asurA-s are those who revel in the

pleasures from the senses. These are the people who, without

knowing the nature of the SELF, follow the pleasures of the

senses. Such persons go through the birth-death-rebirth cycle.

 

shri shankara defines who are surA-:

 

Atmanyeva ratiryeShAM svasmin brahmaNicAcale

te surA iti vikhyAtAH sUrayashca surA matAH

 

surA-s are those who revel in the SELF and in the unmoving

brahman. They attain brahman.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...>

wrote:

>

> namaste.

>

> The question is raised re sensual pleasures.

 

Namaste,

 

This sounds anti-climactic after Lankavatara Sutra! I wonder if

Buddha gave reasons for abandoning the palace and its pleasures, or

why he could not return tothem after enlightenment.

 

Here is one version of the Nachiketa-Yama dialogue:

 

Choose now, Nachiketas, the third gift."

 

"There is doubt concerning people who are deceased.

Some say they exist, and others say they do not exist.

Being taught by you, I would know this.

Of the gifts, this is the third gift."

 

"Even the gods of old had doubt as to this.

It is not easy to understand, so subtle is this law.

Choose another gift, Nachiketas.

Do not press me; release me from this one."

 

"Even the gods had doubt as to this,

and you, Death, say it is not easy to understand.

And another teacher of it like you is not to be found.

No other gift is comparable to this at all."

 

"Choose sons and grandsons who shall live a century,

many cattle, elephants, gold, and horses.

Choose a great estate of land

and live as many years as you want.

If you think this is an equal gift,

choose wealth and long life.

Nachiketas, be the ruler of a great country;

I will make you the enjoyer of your desires.

Whatever desires are hard to get in the mortal world,

request all those desires at your pleasure.

Here are lovely maidens with chariots and music;

these are not to be attained by anyone.

Be served by these whom I give you.

Nachiketas, do not ask about death."

 

"Transient are the things of mortals, Ender,

wearing away all the vigor of their senses.

Even a full life is short.

Yours be the chariots; yours be the dance and song.

A person cannot be satisfied with wealth.

Shall we enjoy wealth when we have seen you?

Shall we live so long as you are in power?

This is the gift to be chosen by me.

Having approached undecaying immortality,

what decaying mortal on this earth below that understands,

that contemplates the pleasures of beauty and enjoyment,

would delight in an over-long life?

This about which they doubt, Death,

what there is in the great passing-on---tell us that.

This gift that penetrates the mystery,

no other than that does Nachiketas choose."

 

2

"The good is one thing, and the pleasant quite another.

Both of these with different purposes bind a person.

Of these two, well is it for the one who takes the good;

failure of aim is it for the one who chooses the pleasant.

The good and the pleasant come to a person.

The thoughtful mind looking all around them discriminates.

The wise chooses the good in preference to the pleasant.

The fool out of getting and having prefers the pleasant.

You, Nachiketas, having examined desires that are pleasant

and that seem to be pleasing, have rejected them.

You have not taken that chain of wealth

in which many mortals sink down.

 

"Opposite and widely divergent are these two:

ignorance and what is known as knowledge.

I think Nachiketas desires knowledge,

for many desires do not distract you.

Those who are in ignorance,

thinking themselves wise and learned,

running here and there, go around deluded

like the blind led by one who is blind.

 

"The passing-on is not clear to the childish or careless

or those deluded by the glamour of wealth.

Thinking 'This is the world; there is no other;'

they fall again and again into my power.

This which cannot even be heard of by many,

that many even hearing do not know,

wonderful is the one who can teach this,

and skillful the one who can learn it,

wonderful the one who knows even when proficiently taught.

This taught by an inferior person is not well understood,

being considered in many ways.

Unless taught by another, there is no going to it,

for it is inconceivably more subtle than the subtle.

Not by reasoning is this thought to be attained.

Taught by another, it is well understood, dear friend.

You have obtained it, holding fast to the truth.

May we find an inquirer like you, Nachiketas."

 

"I know that riches are impermanent,

and that stability is not attained by the unstable.

Therefore the Nachiketas fire has been laid by me,

and by sacrificing the impermanent

I have reached the eternal."

 

"The obtaining of desire, the foundation of the world,

the endlessness of power, the other shore of fearlessness,

the greatness of fame, the wide expanses, the foundation,

you, wise Nachiketas, have steadily let them go.

That which is hard to see, entering the hidden,

set in the secret place, dwelling in the primal depth,

by meditating on this as God through the uniting of the soul,

the wise person leaves joy and sorrow behind.

Hearing this and comprehending,

a mortal extracting what is concerned with virtue,

and subtly taking this, rejoices,

having attained the source of joy.

I know that such a home is open to Nachiketas."

 

http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/upanisada/katha/beck.

html [sanderson Beck]

 

Gita has this warning:

 

yatato hyapi kaunteya purushhasya vipashchitaH .

indriyaaNi pramaathiini haranti prasabhaM manaH .. 2\-60..

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste all:

>

> Here is a proposal for a topic that is of great interest to

> me. Several times Sri Ram has reminded us of the 'dangers' of the

> senses and of pleasure. What exactly is this danger? Should

> pleasure be avoided as much as possible? Or is it merely a matter

of

> moderation? Can pleasure even be absorbed into realization with

the

> proper 'attitude'? I must confess that I do love anything that

has

> sugar in it!

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

 

It may be important to define pleasure. Enjoyment of beautiful

scenes, music, food etc. are all sense pleasures, but are these what

we are talking about? May be not.

 

Katha upanishad talks about the path of sreyas and preyas in detail.

We are living in a society full of sense stimulation, it would be

impossible to isolate yourself and live like a hermit. For example,

it seems that turning down a sumptuos meal in the name of sadhana to

just live on fruits and grains is not what our scriptures ask us to

do. Going only after certain experiences, and hankering after sense

pleasures is what they ask us to avoid.

 

To me it seems that craving for pleasure and aversion to non-

pleasure is to be avoided. It is this rAga and dvesha that leads to

delusion, fear and anger. Normal enjoyment in a path of moderation

is quite acceptable, I would think. This is more inline with what

Bhagavad Geetha teaches us.

 

My 2cents,

Savithri