Temptation

[Gauracandra]

Here is a nice quote from "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas a Kempis on temptation. I've mentioned this book before. It is truly brilliant. Every page you open is fantastic. I bought it a few months back and always find it illuminating. Its the best book I've picked up since Srila Gour Govinda Swami's "The Embankment of Separation."

 

Many people seek to flee temptation and fall the more deeply into it, for by merely fleeing we cannot win the victory, but by humility and patience we may be made stronger than our enemies. He who merely flees the outward occasions and does not cut away the inordinate desires hidden inwardly in his heart shall gain little; temptation will easily come to him again and grieve him more than it did at first. Little by little, with patience and fortitude, and with the help of God, you will sooner overcome temptations than with your own strength and persistence. In your temptation it is good often to ask counsel. It is good not to be severe on any person who is tempted; rather, be glad to comfort him as you would be glad to be comforted.

[Guest guest]

OK, let’s suppose that one finally has attained the victory over temptation. Now he is a master over all of his senses, over the sexual impetus, the urges of the belly, over the tongue, and his mind is calm and fixed.

 

Is that vidya? God-knowledge, the cause of Hari’s direct perception as mentioned in Vedanta-sutras (3.3.48-49)? For certain this is not vidya!

 

Some schools of thought, such as the one taught by Patañjali Muni and followed by Rupa, state that one who has attained mastership over his senses is to be considered as a guru and he may have disciples. But what kind of guru he may be? For certain only a yoga-guru, who may teach someone on how to control his senses through some artificial techniques. But he cannot give vidya to someone else, as he hasn’t attained it by this method!

 

[Gauracandra]

I don't think anyone views self-control as the end in and of itself. A single verse or paragraph about the attainment of self-control does not do justice to the philosophy of Patanjali, Rupa Goswami, or Thomas a Kempis. Perhaps I'll post more from Thomas a Kempis in this regard. His view is that we must surrender ourselves to God, and through His grace, temptation (which is that which redirects our attention away from God) can be conquered. He says that all saints are tempted, but through humility and prayer they overcome temptation. Christ for instance was tempted by the Devil with all the treasures of the world after 40 days of fasting. But he rejected such worldly items.

 

Gauracandra

[Guest guest]

 

Gauracandra: His view is that we must surrender ourselves to God, and through His grace, temptation (which is that which redirects our attention away from God) can be conquered. He says that all saints are tempted, but through humility and prayer they overcome temptation.

Satyaraj: For certain his view is venting the ordinary viewpoint of many neophytes who give credit to sanga-misra-bhakti.

 

Sanga-misra-bhakti is the tentative that one performs to attain a saintly state by following saintly behavior. Saints are humble, compassionate, peaceful, many are celibates, are always praying, they don’t have selfish desires, and so on. But it is said that these qualities are but by-products of bhakti’s manifestation and its development in their hearts. They are not even the remote cause of bhakti.

 

Ordinary people may try to live like saints by the imitation of their behavior, but finally they end frustrated and will desist from that imitation. This is the opinion of many of the Gaudiya-vaisnava acaryas from the past, such as Visvanatha and Baladeva.

 

These acaryas also stress that bhakti is an independent entity and completely self-propelled. There is no cause for bhakti, as it is part of jiva’s intrinsic nature. Not even Hari’s grace is the cause of that bhakti, as it has no cause at all.

 

It is due these frustrated endeavors to attain a saintly position by following saintly behavior that one may raise a theory like that, where an Evil Force, such as Satan or Maya, is always tempting the soul diverging his attention away from God and that this Evil Force can only be conquered by God’s grace.

 

Instead of the viewpoint of any ordinary writer who is following such theory, I strong recommend you to read at least Visvanatha’s Madhurya Kadambini, 1st Shower, to further explanation and a little more advanced thesis on how ‘temptation’ is conquered. It is better you follow the viewpoint of the acaryas of your own sect regarding this subject matter. They are eons of years-light beyond the reasoning of this writer indeed.

 

[suryaz]

His view is that we must surrender ourselves to God, and through His grace, temptation (which is that which redirects our attention away from God) can be conquered. Gauracandra

 

I know what choice is - but - Temptation?

What is it?

 

Is it not something born of personal deception – the shifting of the blame/inadequacies/human frailty etc onto another to justify/deny such?

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 11-29-2001).]

[talasiga]

Originally posted by suryaz:

I know what choice is - but - Temptation?

What is it?

 

 

This is attraction to the Divine

in a form that one has not yet recognised as Divine .....

 

 

[Guest guest]

Suryazji: I know what choice is - but - Temptation?

What is it?

 

Satyaraj: That’s a curious question indeed! Hari is the only prompter in jiva’s heart. There is not a second Hari. So, all sort of inspirations might come from His activities as a prompter within jiva’s heart.

 

Therefore such anomaly called ‘temptation’ cannot be caused by no one but Hari Himself. The thesis that another prompter is also inspiriting jiva’s heart conflicts with the sruti statement that there is no other Hari nowhere else.

 

So, we might conclude that temptation should be Hari Himself which is who which redirects our attention away from God and vice-versa.

 

Is there any other possibility?

 

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

Here is a nice quote from "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas a Kempis on temptation. ..........

 

"Many people seek to flee temptation and fall the more deeply into it, for by merely fleeing we cannot win the victory, but by humility and patience we may be made stronger than our enemies. He who merely flees the outward occasions and does not cut away the inordinate desires hidden inwardly in his heart shall gain little; temptation will easily come to him again and grieve him more than it did at first. Little by little, with patience and fortitude, and with the help of God, you will sooner overcome temptations than with your own strength and persistence. In your temptation it is good often to ask counsel. It is good not to be severe on any person who is tempted; rather, be glad to comfort him as you would be glad to be comforted."

Lust is already such a FLEETING, IMPERMANENT thing

Why spend a whole lifetime trying to overcome it ?

 

.

.

.

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 11-29-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Talasigaji: (Temptation) This is attraction to the Divine

in a form that one has not yet recognised as Divine .....

 

Satyaraj: Oh! Another hidden avatara!? Yes! How can one avoid Divine’s attraction? Isn’t a constant grace to be attracted by Him and by any of His forms?

 

Is there any other possibility?

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Suryazji: I know what choice is - but - Temptation?

What is it?

 

Satyaraj: That’s a curious question indeed! Hari is the only prompter in jiva’s heart. There is not a second Hari. So, all sort of inspirations might come from His activities as a prompter within jiva’s heart.

 

Therefore such anomaly called ‘temptation’ cannot be caused by no one but Hari Himself. The thesis that another prompter is also inspiriting jiva’s heart conflicts with the sruti statement that there is no other Hari nowhere else.

 

So, we might conclude that temptation should be Hari Himself which is who which redirects our attention away from God and vice-versa.

 

Is there any other possibility?

 

 

I do not know Satyaraja. From my part, when I desire something, I make a choice about it and then take it or leave it.

 

If I fail to acheive/get it the first time, and if I still want it, I may or may not try for it again (what ever I choose to do). When it is evident that I cannot have it, I then leave it alone.

 

But it is not uncommon to hear some say:

 

I desire X and I am tempted by it.

 

Is not the notion of “temptation”, and/or the promotion of the object of desire as an allurement, nothing other than a fallacy?

 

Gauracandra,

 

I am a bit worried about where Thomas a Kempis' “temptation” bit and/or his promotion of such is coming from. For me, Thomas a Kempis’ premise is a faulty one to begin with.

 

I know Thomas a Kempis is trying to be level headed, profound and in search of the good. But is not the notion of “temptation” not only a fallacy, but also brings into play issues of bewitchment, or at the extreme possession by the Devil or other evil spirits etc., etc. un-necessary struggles with guilt complexes, self-abuse, witch-hunts and more. Moreover, many innocent people throughout history have suffer greatly just because some people or a person are/is not clear on the matter of the "temptation" fallacy bit, and the oppressive, unfair, unjust, undue, unmerited and unreasonable reality such an approach brings with it

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-03-2001).]

[Guest guest]

Suryazji: Is not the notion of “temptation”, and/or the promotion of the object of desire as an allurement, nothing other than a fallacy?

 

Satyaraj: In other words, isn’t karma-vasana itself an allurement?

 

Well, many theologies are raised to solve that question. Some argue that karma-vasana is prompted by Satan or by Maya due soul’s rebelliousness towards God’s attraction, love, control, and so on. Other say that soul’s enter this material world due Hari’s desires as a mere sport, no evil intended.

 

I personally prefer to consider Hari as a joker and a player, and this karma-vasana as part of His lilas of creation, support and destruction of material worlds. As a mere sport.

 

Why to live in a guilty mood?

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by talasiga:

This is attraction to the Divine

in a form that one has not yet recognised as Divine .....

 

 

MEANING 1:-

 

Satyaraj: ...........Yes! How can one avoid Divine’s attraction? Isn’t a constant grace to be attracted by Him and by any of His forms?

Is there any other possibility?

 

(Talasiga: this is the meaning I meant.)

 

 

MEANING 2:-

 

Suryaz: OK - so (in this view) I really want the company of the Divine but I think I want something else.

 

(Talasiga: this is NOT what I meant.

But no fault - you are entitled to interpret your own way if it is within the semantic scope of the utterance which yours obviously is. What a delightful twist !)

 

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by suryaz:

So we come back again to choice and desire.

 

If one feels bad about one's desire for X but does not want to see it as coming from the self, but then tries to reconcile the inner struggle by shifting the focus situation onto the ‘other’ he/she will say I am tempted by X.

 

If we see the desire as coming from the self we say I desire X. I will make a choice about X. Then one is at leas starting off with a honest and responsible approach. To say I was tempted by X - is not this only a halfway honest approach.

 

As such, on this matter, is not Thomas a Kempis "half a thinker"? Or his religio-cultural cognitive frame only permits him to be “half a thinker”

Perhaps he is, like all of us, only half a human because humanity is male and female and he was only one sex ?

 

You see Suryaz, it appears that your half analysis is flawed -

it may be distilled as follows:

 

S = Subject acknowledging desire (attracted)

X = Object of desire (attracting)

T (Temptation) = X minus S

 

Let's do a reality check:

 

Have you ever known anyone to be tempted by something they are NOT attracted to ?

Surely, when someone admits temptation they are admitting attraction.

 

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by talasiga:

You see Suryaz, it appears that your half analysis is flawed -

it may be distilled as follows:

 

S = Subject acknowledging desire (attracted)

X = Object of desire (attracting)

T (Temptation) = X minus S

 

 

Talasiga,

 

I only have time to address "half" of your post right now

 

I will get to the other bit later

 

 

OK

S = Subject acknowledging desire (attracted)

X = Object of desire (attracting)

T (Temptation) = X minus S

 

 

No! This is not my view. In my view the object in itself never attracts. Desire for the "object" (which is in your view to object of attraction) always comes from the perceiver; the one who desires the object. In itself the object of desire is never the cause of attraction. It is I who chooses to find the object attractive or otherwise. It is I who desires the company of/achievement of/gaining of the object of my desire.

 

[talasiga]

Originally posted by suryaz:

So we come back again to choice and desire.

 

If one feels bad about one's desire for X but does not want to see it as coming from the self, but then tries to reconcile the inner struggle by shifting the focus situation onto the ‘other’ he/she will say I am tempted by X.

 

If we see the desire as coming from the self we say I desire X. I will make a choice about X. Then one is at leas starting off with a honest and responsible approach. To say I was tempted by X - is not this only a halfway honest approach.

 

As such, on this matter, is not Thomas a Kempis "half a thinker"? Or his religio-cultural cognitive frame only permits him to be “half a thinker”

talasiga: Perhaps he is, like all of us, only half a human because humanity is male and female and he was only one sex ?

 

You see Suryaz, it appears that your half analysis is flawed -

it may be distilled as follows:

 

S = Subject acknowledging desire (attracted)

X = Object of desire (attracting)

T (Temptation) = X minus S

 

 

Let's do a reality check:

 

Have you ever known anyone to be tempted by something they are NOT attracted to ?

Surely, when someone admits temptation they are admitting attraction.

 

suryaz: No! This is not my view. In my view the object in itself never attracts. Desire for the "object" (which is in your view to object of attraction) always comes from the perceiver; the one who desires the object. In itself the object of desire is never the cause of attraction. It is I who chooses to find the object attractive or otherwise. It is I who desires the company of/achievement of/gaining of the object of my desire.

 

talasiga: OK.....Forgive me.

Let me try again.

Your view may be distilled as:

S = Subject

D = Desire or feeling attraction

X = Object

 

( thus

SD = Subject with desire acknowledging it

SD/D = Subject with desire not acknowledging desire)

 

Accordingly, you propose about Temptation (T)

as follows:

 

T = SD/D + XD

(ie. a projection where the subject denies attraction and attributes the attraction solely to the object )

 

Once again - "Let's do a reality check:"

 

Have you ever known anyone to be tempted by something they are NOT attracted to ?

Surely, when someone admits temptation they are admitting attraction.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-03-2001).]

[suryaz]

Originally posted by talasiga:

This is attraction to the Divine

in a form that one has not yet recognised as Divine .....

 

 

"attraction to the Divine"

 

I do not know Talasiga. "Attraction to the Divine" is for me: desire for the company of the Divine

 

"in a form that one has not yet recognised as Divine"

 

 

humm desire for the company of the Divine that is un-recognised by one as such ????

 

OK - so (in this view) I really want the company of the Divine but I think I want something else.

 

So temptation (in this view) goes back to the needs and wants of the individual and what the individual proposes to do about the fulfilment of such.

 

So we come back again to choice and desire.

 

If one feels bad about one's desire for X but does not want to see it as coming from the self, but then tries to reconcile the inner struggle by shifting the focus situation onto the ‘other’ he/she will say I am tempted by X.

 

If we see the desire as coming from the self we say I desire X. I will make a choice about X. Then one is at leas starting off with a honest and responsible approach. To say I was tempted by X - is not this only a halfway honest approach.

 

As such, on this matter, is not Thomas a Kempis "half a thinker"? Or his religio-cultural cognitive frame only permits him to be “half a thinker”

[suryaz]

Talasiga,

 

No in my view T (temptation) is not real.

 

There is desire D and there is choice C. Desire for me in more in tune with René Descartes’ (1596-1650) “animal automata” theory - “interfibrillar nerve mechanism” produce reflexive reaction, conscious sensations that affect the mind (Descartes 1646:204). These reflexive reaction Descartes (1646:204) identified as “animal spirit” or “quasi-spirit”. In human beings however, Descartes regarded the soul as the initiator of “the outflow” of “animal/quasi spirit” (Descartes 1646).

 

 

Like wise for me the self is the initiator of D and the self makes a choice – Yes I realise I take Descartes’ theory a bit further so as to include not just reflexes but biological and psychological needs and wants (wherein psychological is directly correlated to the biological world), but at same time I maintain (as Descartes does) a metaphysical principle.

 

 

For me psychological constructs that are the creation of other psychological constructs are imaginary

 

 

Temptation only exists as an imaginary archetype; it is not of the real world, or of the self. The T notion is a mistake at best. It turns into self-deception, or at the extreme abuse of another when promoted as real. It is an illicit construct of the human psyche when presented as fact. I asy illicit because in all honesty it does not really exist although it is presented by some as fact. It only functions on the basis of fallacy; when one refuses to realise one’s human frailty and/or refuses to accept the limitation and/or responsibility that goes along with that human frailty.

 

suryaz: No! …In my view the object in itself never attracts. Desire for the "object" (which is in your view to object of attraction) always comes from the perceiver; the one who desires the object. In itself the object of desire is never the cause of attraction. It is I who chooses to find the object attractive or otherwise. It is I who desires the company of/achievement of/gaining of the object of my desire.

 

 

TalasigaHave you ever known anyone to be tempted by something they are NOT attracted to ?

 

 

For me this question would read – “Have you ever known anyone to be tempted (wherein temptation is an illusory construct) by something they are NOT attracted to (do not desir) ?”

 

 

My answer: yes it is possible but would function where there is some psychotic derangement. Schizophrenics and multiple-personality types get confused about themselves, their expressions, things and their environments all the time. But that is not to say that the temptation bit is not a distortion also. The above mentioned personality typologies are more complex in their delusion than those that possess the temptation model.

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-04-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-04-2001).]

[talasiga]

Originally posted by suryaz:

No in my view T (temptation) is not real.

 

There is desire D and there is choice C.

......................................

..........for me the self is the initiator of D[esire] and the self makes a choice ...

 

So according to you there is S[elf] with D[esire] C[hoosing].

But you haven't covered what the Choice is between.

Something is being chosen is it not ?

So, lets name that "something" as O for object of choice.

C = SD + O

if there is no O there is no option for choice, you will just have S with innate Desire

Choice option exists because SD is presented with O

Thus we may call the context wherein SD

has a relationship of C with O

as T[emptation].

 

As for your comments on the non reality of

temptation,

this may be regarded as a "mayavadi" thrust that could be equally applied to "self", "choice", "desire" etc as well.

But that is another topic.......

 

[gHari]

H + O + O ===> H20

[talasiga]

Originally posted by gHari:

H + O + O ===> H20

 

Hmmm......

what does it mean ? what does it mean ?

Now let me see .....

 

You went from H[amilton] 2 O[ttawa] (via [O]shawa) ?

There was much winter rain ?

The taxi had a leaky roof ?

 

Y[awn]

Z[zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

 

 

[suryaz]

Originally posted by talasiga:

So according to you there is S[elf] with D[esire] C[hoosing].

But you haven't covered what the Choice is between.

Something is being chosen is it not ?

So, lets name that "something" as O for object of choice.

C = SD + O

if there is no O there is no option for choice, you will just have S with innate Desire

Choice option exists because SD is presented with O

Thus we may call the context wherein SD

has a relationship of C with O

as T[emptation].

 

As for your comments on the non reality of

temptation,

this may be regarded as a "mayavadi" thrust that could be equally applied to "self", "choice", "desire" etc as well.

But that is another topic.......

No wrong again

 

© I choose

(D) Desire involves a composite of body-mind and soul. Desire always comes from me.

(O) The object of desire is always passive

(T) In this cognitive frame one can never be in – ‘a state of temptation by another’. Why? Because the cognitive frame (the schema) does not permit such. Yes! I know of the schema that develops such T bits; but for me T bits are of cognitive fallacy when presented as fact in the real world. Why? Because the T bit it is of imaginative content (which we can all construct).

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-06-2001).]

[talasiga]

Originally posted by suryaz:

No wrong again

 

© I choose

(D) Desire involves a composite of body-mind and soul. Desire always comes from me.

(O) The object of desire is always passive

(T) In this cognitive frame one can never be in – ‘a state of temptation by another’. Why? Because the cognitive frame (the schema) does not permit such. Yes! I know of the schema that develops such T bits; but for me T bits are of cognitive fallacy when presented as fact in the real world. Why? Because the T bit it is of imaginative content (which we can all construct).

 

 

 

 

I am merely distilling your position

and logically extending it.

If you see it as wrong

either the distillation is faulty

or the distillation process is showing the fault in your view.

 

My concluding logical extension was

"Thus we may call the context wherein SD

has a relationship of C with O

as T[emptation]."

Let me recap - this means:

TEMPTATION is the <u>context</u> wherein

Self with Desire has a relationship of Choice with Object/s (passive or otherwise).

 

 

If you cannot recognise that, <u>without</u>

O[bject/s], the S[elf] with D[esire]

does NOT HAVE ANY OPTION TO CHOOSE,

then, sadly, I cannot proceed further with you

at this point in time.

 

Good Luck .....

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-06-2001).]

[suryaz]

Originally posted by talasiga:

I am merely distilling your position

and logically extending it.

If you see it as wrong

either the distillation is faulty

or the distillation process is showing the fault in your view.

 

My concluding logical extension was

"Thus we may call the context wherein SD

has a relationship of C with O

as T[emptation]."

Let me recap - this means:

TEMPTATION is the <u>context</u> wherein

Self with Desire has a relationship of Choice with Object/s (passive or otherwise).

 

 

If you cannot recognise that, <u>without</u>

O[bject/s], the S[elf] with D[esire]

does NOT HAVE ANY OPTION TO CHOOSE,

then, sadly, I cannot proceed further with you

at this point in time.

 

Good Luck .....

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-06-2001).]

Humm OK Tala, Let us begin again

 

For Talasiga: SD = Subject with desire acknowledging it

 

For me : SD = Self with desire acknowledging it as coming from me

 

For Talasiga: SD/D = Subject with desire not acknowledging desire)

 

For me SD/D = Self with desire and not acknowledging that the desire is from self but viewing the O as the cause of desire would put into play the grounds for creating the T notion.

 

But

 

When self acknowledges that the desire is from self, the O cannot be the cause of desire. Thus the T bit cannot come into play.

 

 

Thus in one bit, or sense of it, through logic a person is in a state to transcend (in that one can honestly acknowledge the origin of that which some call) the temptation bit

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-06-2001).]

[talasiga]

<u>Noodles Circle Round and Round and

Temptation Spirals

with

Pasta Sauce</u>

 

 

Originally posted by talasiga:

Thus we may call the context wherein SD

has a relationship of C with O

as T[emptation]."

Let me recap - this means:

TEMPTATION is the <u>context</u> wherein

Self with Desire has a relationship of Choice with Object/s (passive or otherwise).

 

 

Suryaz: Humm OK Tala[siga], Let us begin again.

Talasiga: Are you able to do this [sur]yaz ?

 

Suryaz: For Talasiga: SD = Subject with desire acknowledging it

Talasiga: You want to begin again but you want to bring up this ?

This was an attempt to clarify your very muddled presentation of

your position.

 

Suryaz: For me : SD = Subject with desire acknowledging it as coming from me

talasiga: Yes but "acknowledging it as coming from me" is redundant. See my earlier "reality check" which you didn't seem to understand.

Suryaz: For Talasiga: SD/D = Subject with desire not acknowledging desire .

Talasiga: Wrong. That was a temporary equation reflecting your position

which was impliedly rejected by the "reality check"

in the very posting that I raised it.

 

Suryaz: [1]For me SD/D = Self with desire and not acknowledging that the desire is from self but viewing the O as the cause of desire [2]would put into play the grounds for creating the T notion.

talasiga: This is elucidation of the temporary equation I already offered

and is STILL

rejected by the reality check which you do not appear to have understood.

[2] This is argumentation and does not properly belong

in equation. It is confusing to do this.

 

Suryaz: [1]When self acknowledges that the desire is from self, the O cannot be the cause of desire. [2]Thus the T bit cannot come into play.

Talasiga: [1] What's new Pussycat ? SD has already, WAAAAY Back, been equated with this. But O[ther] or O[bject] is required for the SD to be in a position to C[hoose].

[2] Together, we apear to have come up with

a contextual and non-emotive definition of T[emptation] which does not contradict the SD, that Desire is of the Self. (See my quote above)

You appear to have a block about this as you

can only see T with the traditional BAGGAGE attached to it

and this fetters your ability to appreciate

the new paradigm.

 

Suryaz: Thus in ONE bit, or sense of it, through logic a person is in a state to transcend (at least in that one can honestly acknowledge the origin of that which some call) the temptation bit

Talasiga: Yes, agreed - one can overcome the delusion that the rope is a snake. But the rope and the snake still remain and one sees the rope as a rope (or just existentially as a length of non living material) and the snake is seen as a snake etc.

So we may also come to a point where T[emptation] is devoid of the delusory projections and is seen to exist as simply a context where S[ubject/elf] with innate recognised D[esire] has option of C[hoosing] due to presence of O[bjects/ther].

 

 

 

[suryaz]

 

Originally posted by talasiga:

<u>Originally posted by talasiga:

 

Thus we may call the context wherein SD

has a relationship of C with O

as T[emptation]."

Let me recap - this means:

TEMPTATION is the context wherein

Self with Desire has a relationship of Choice with Object/s (passive or otherwise).

 

: [underlining by Suryaz] and I have no idea how this is happening If it continues down page please ignore it as I am fully eeked! and confused

about this occurrence (The "underlining by Suryaz" bit I have posted after Talasiga's request for it (see down-page)[thanks Talasiga]

--

 

NO! Tala, NO! You need to get this bit right first.

 

I through my own body-mind (psychophysical nature) construct notions ABOUT Object/s. This is what is at play when I say I desire X. The Object is always passive. The object does not attract. The body-mind-self relationship is not with the object it is about it. I choose to superimpose my values, my desire on the object thus I say I desire the object.

 

The object cannot exist as an instrument of temptation when one knows it is the self who chooses. In this cognitive frame to blame the object of your desire, for your desire for the enjoyment of it (simply because O exists, or because you happen to know about O and you want it in some way or other) is a fallacy.

 

 

I will get to the rest later – I have to gat back to work now.

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-06-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-06-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-06-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-06-2001).]