suryaz

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

I didn't want to deviate from Jijaji's posting, so I thought I'd start a new one. Anyone have an opinion of Deepak Chopra? I won't claim to know a whole lot about him, but I did look through one of his books a few years back. Basically my view was that it was just the typical self-help book (like Tony Robbins and all the rest), but with an eastern philosophy angle. It was just too touchy feely for me, where everything was just thrown in. I'm not a big believer in the self-help movement, but I do think it is gradually becoming the "new" religion. Even Christian preachers I see on TV now sound just like self-help promoters. The Bible and Jesus are just there to help you achieve a better marriage, sounder finances, and such. Thats what I'm seeing in the culture right now. But I have a feeling the self-help movement is going out of fashion. It was in during the touchy-feely '90s, but I'm thinking since 9-11 people are looking for something more solid. We'll see.

 

Gauracandra

What does "touchy-feely '90s" mean?

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-17-2001).]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

I didn't want to deviate from Jijaji's posting, so I thought I'd start a new one. Anyone have an opinion of Deepak Chopra? I won't claim to know a whole lot about him, but I did look through one of his books a few years back. Basically my view was that it was just the typical self-help book (like Tony Robbins and all the rest), but with an eastern philosophy angle. It was just too touchy feely for me, where everything was just thrown in. I'm not a big believer in the self-help movement, but I do think it is gradually becoming the "new" religion. Even Christian preachers I see on TV now sound just like self-help promoters. The Bible and Jesus are just there to help you achieve a better marriage, sounder finances, and such. Thats what I'm seeing in the culture right now. But I have a feeling the self-help movement is going out of fashion. It was in during the touchy-feely '90s, but I'm thinking since 9-11 people are looking for something more solid. We'll see.

 

Gauracandra

What does "touchy-feely '90s" mean?

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-17-2001).]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

I'm glad you liked it. The line I liked best was when they were swimming and the question is asked "How are you able to do this?" and he replied "You want to know how I managed to do this? I'll tell you how, because I never saved anything for the swim back."

 

 

Gauracandra

Gauracandra,

 

Yes I liked that bit too. It brings into view the elasticity of that which underpins human endeavor. Through our will we cannot only fulfill our desires, our dreams, but there is more, we can also expand on from there.

 

Thanks Gauracandra – Yes I will check the other movie out soon

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-17-2001).]

Originally posted by atma:

Recently I saw in the news that a couple is spending $5 million in cloning their pet dog. How ridiculous this is getting. So attached to the animal that they want exactly the same thing.It's getting on my nerves.

 

When I was a child I was fascinated with taking a part of a plant, placing it in water and watching it grow roots. There was one particular plant I liked more so. I cloned the plant over and over again. It did not const me $5M, but then I did not need $5M to clone the plant I chose to propagate. So money was not a problem. Could it not be the same thing for the people who want to clone their dog? Obviously $5M is not a problem for them, but the personal mysterium they receive from offering affection to another (even if it is a particular other, or part of it) is worth more to them than whatever else the money can buy.

 

So what we are looking at here is personal differences.

 

For persons x the $5M can be spent differently because x place different values on the affection offered to the dog and/or its pure offspring. That is all.

 

 

According to Fakir Mohan Das (1999) in 1881 Bhaktivenoda Thakura initiated his son, Bimal-prasad Datta (1874-1937), into the chanting of the Nrisingha and Hare Krishna maha-mantras.

 

"Choti: The Native Place of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura". Orissa: Sri Baladeva Research Institute Krishna Towers.

 

Does anybody know what this Nrisingha mantra is? Did Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati offer it to any of his disciples? If so who?

 

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

A REAL good movie to watch in this regard is Gattaca. Some people will find it to be very slow. I really loved the movie. Its very sad and melancholy. I tend to relate the movie as a sci-fi adaptation of the story (I think it was Bilvamangala, but I might be wrong) where a man visits a prostitute. The man goes through so much pain and suffering to reach the prostitute. And in the end she simply provides him buckets of blood, hair, urine etc... Some critics didn't like this aspect of Gattaca. But to me it was key.

 

The tag line for the movie as I recall was someting like "There is no cell for the human spirit". This was a play on words as a cell (or prison) cannot hold back a person (in this case society holding back others), as well as a cell (genetically) cannot give a person spirit. One character is genetically perfect, but has no spirit. He seeks to commit suicide. Another was born imperfect, but strives because he has dreams. I would really recommend renting this film. It is one of my favorites.

 

Gauracandra

Gauracandra,

 

Gattaca, humm yes, I finally got around to watching this movie. I agree with you Gauracandra, it is one of the most wonderful movies produced. It transcends the nature-nurture debate and brings into play a Sartrean existentialists approach Viz: “You are what you create yourself to be” (as opposed to what others (whether social or scientific) create you to be).

 

In his society, Vinny’s inherited genetic code overtly left him with not much opportunity to fulfil his desired destiny. For him society said he could only dream of his desired goal.

 

Further, the movie is based on the premise that there is no gene for “faith”; and faith in this movie, is faith in one self as the creator of one’s own destiny. I would imagine there is such a gene.

 

But what impressed me most is the last statement in the movie: “every atom in our body was once part of a star”. Yes we are stardust. –Suryaz

 

PS Some say the soul fell from the brahmajyoti, is that not stardust?

 

Are there not many ways to view this?

-- I think it is so.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-16-2001).]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

Now you are telling me that the effects might continue even after growing up. Very odd. I'll look into it a bit more.

 

Gauracandra

Humm! Yes, the research subjects were older Japanese men

Originally posted by vinay:

can we say that buddhism, jainism are a part of hinduism or r they considered to be two different religions?

is it true that these two religions are atheist religions, since they do not have a belief in the supreme being.

In Buddhism there is the concept of the “anatma” the “no-self”; there is neither a single eternal metaphysical principle nor a multiplicity of such.

Originally posted by vinay:

can we say that buddhism, jainism are a part of hinduism or r they considered to be two different religions?

is it true that these two religions are atheist religions, since they do not have a belief in the supreme being.

In Buddhism there is the concept of the “anatma” the “no-self”; there is neither a single eternal metaphysical principle nor a multiplicity of such.

Loneliness??? What is it????

 

I know in theory that Krsna is in our hearts and therefore we should never feel lonely. While I cannot say I have had practical experience of such, I can say I have experienced moments of inspiration in some small way, that were meaningful to me

 

 

But there again, I like my own company so I do not feel lonely too often and feel inspired by my thoughts.

 

But when I think of what loneliness is, it is for me when I have negative thoughts.

 

Even when I just have my own company and I have good thoughts I do not experience what I call loneliness.

 

So is loneliness just being ill at ease with the self?

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-11-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-11-2001).]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

This is funny but I haven't stopped drinking this soy milk all day. I bought it yesterday, and easily have consumed 1 gallon of soy milk in the last day. I'm just chugging it down. Every hour or so I just pour me a couple of glasses and drink it down.

 

Maybe its addicting. But at first I didn't think a whole lot of it. They say the body can tell what it needs (nutritionally) and often will develop a craving to satisfy it. Anyways, I'm quite enjoying my soy milk right now glug, glug, glug....

 

Gauracandra

No! Gauracandra,

 

I hate to break your dream my good man,

 

Could it be you just forgot you drank the last bit, and then later discovered how much you drank?

 

I saw a documentary on TV once upon a day. Its focus was the research into the affects of soy-tofu on older men.

 

The results of the research showed that if men eat tofu at least 3 times/week in their younger years they struggle with memory loss in old age.

 

"They say the body can tell what it needs (nutritionally) and often will develop a craving to satisfy it".

 

Is your body telling you you need to forget? Are you drowning out your memories? Or could it be you are drinking some super soy with increased benefits, modified outcomes and of course some added bonus? Humm??

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-10-2001).]

Originally posted by Ananga:

Part of an interview with George was just published in People magazine, wherein he states that he never really 'joined them', just in spirit. He also said that if SP knew that his disciples were ripping people off in airports, they would have had their 'behinds kicked'. The overall tone of his statements was that he respected SP, but did care much for his followers. I guess a couple that he stayed in contact with (like Mukunda) were the exception.

 

Ananga,

 

What issue of People Magazine is this in?

Originally posted by talasiga:

(Perhaps not unlike Temptation) !

 

 

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

 

YES! YES! YES! Right On Talasiga YES - A mistake, surrounded by confusion.

Originally posted by talasiga:

<u>DUTTIYAM PI</u>

 

The object only has appealing value when I superimpose my notions about that onto it. You cannot designate it temptation just because it exists. That defies by anybody's estimation any kind of morality. From such immorality notion such as fascism deception, dishonesty delusion and the rest of it arise.

 

If you cannot get that then what can else can be said.

 

bye for now

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-07-2001).]

Originally posted by suryaz:

 

I have no idea how the underlining bit happened

 

 

 

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).]

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).]

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,

 

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).]

quote:

--

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

Here is a list of virtues from "The Book of Virtues":

1. Self-Discipline

2. Compassion

3. Responsibility

4. Friendship

5. Work

6. Courage

7. Perseverance

8. Honesty

9. Loyalty

10. Faith

 

 

--

 

NOPE!!!!! wrong - it is all in the approach

 

Kids need to know and understand why adherence to something is for their benefit. To insist your kids follow 1-10 mention above is an extremely authoritarian approach.

 

I would suggest an authoritative approach. Discuss with your kids why x is acceptable or otherwise. Then ask the kid to help you work out what the is best. To help the approach I would add the following to the above list :

11. Understanding

12 Critical analysis

13 Aspects of rationalism

 

And of course:

 

14 Love and affection

 

Definitely affection – all kids need affection.

 

Our kids are not robots. They are little people right now – but really they are souls. As souls they heave free-will and we should respect that. I am not saying one should not guide one’s offspring. I am saying to demand they function to (or dance to the tune of) our terms (alone) and not let them be active participants in decisions (we as parents) made about them is also to impinge on the intrinsic right of the soul to choose.

 

Yes; as parents we are responsible for the growth and development of our kids, but on the other hand the kids are also individual souls with free will. We cannot turn them into instruments of our pleasure. They are not objects we make demands of. They are not robots.

 

Guide you kids,

Explain things rationally to your kids,

Let them be participant in the decision.

And remind them that whatever decision they make, they have to take responsibility for. If as a parent you feel the decision the kid makes is wrong – then discuss with them/him/her what, how and why, the decision is wrong in your view.

 

 

 

 

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

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”

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.

 

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).]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

One of the biggest stumbling blocks I see for devotees to raise wholesome children is the outside influence of non-devotees.....

Gauracandra

 

The following are segments from an essay I wrote once upon a day. I hope they help you somehow

 

Durkheim was the first anthropologist to recognise the power of enculturation in human society; in this connection he wrote (1895:6):

 

“...it becomes immediately evident that all education is a continuous effort to impose in the child ways of seeing, feeling and acting which he could not have arrived at spontaneously. From the very first hours of life, we compel him to eat, drink, and sleep at regular hours; we constrain him to cleanliness, calmness, and obedience; later we exert pressure upon him in order that he may learn proper consideration for others, respect for customs and conventions, the need for work, etc. If, in time this constraint ceases to be felt, it is because it gradually gives rise to habits and to internal tendencies that render constraints unnecessary.”

 

Thus by the time a child is two or three years old the child is already conditioned by a particular cultural tradition (Barrett1984:55). In other words the child has learned the stereotyped verbal language, gestures and cognitive symbols that make up language and etiquette, of the primary ideologies recognised and established by the child's group as part of their culture.

 

In this connection Geddes (Lecture 3:1994; Ainsworth 1967; Wellman 1990) further explained that before a child learns to speak, the child has begun to classify and categorise his/her environment in ways that are particular to that society. As the child develops a cognitive cultural frame, the child is able to put sentences together and identify categories in both positive and negative terms. Through this action the child becomes reflexive and self-aware (Astington 1988:850).

 

This culturally conditioned self-awareness not only "provides a key to inward identity" but it unites society as a whole and puts into motion a process whereby society reproduces itself from one generation to the next (Folson 1973:75; Bates & Plog 1990:240). This process is called enculturation. Enculturation involves both the explicit and unconscious moulding of a child's character, to the cultural understanding thehis/her environment through the application of culturally defined rules and regulations imposed on the child by his/her family and society. And since all cultures are different then all cultures will have a different set of primary ideologies or ways of categorising the universe, making sense of their world, creating systems of socialisation, defining the socially accepted role of adults and ways of preparing their children for adulthood….

 

 

….According to Herslovits (1955:453) there are two aspects of enculturation; one is "early life" conditioning, or the acquisition of primary ideology described above. And the other aspect of enculturation continues throughout adult life. For maturing and mature members of a society, this process of enculturation involves preparing people for adulthood, teaching people about new concepts and new responsibilities associated with changing positions and changing circumstances in society (Herskovits 1955:453;Seymour-Smith 1986:261).

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 12-02-2001).]

Originally posted by bhaktashab:

This word Purana means history. Those who follow Vedic culture accept them as history. You may not, but who are you to deny the authority of the Puranas?

The purpose and scope of the Puranas is vast, but the knowledge is revealed through historical incidents.

 

 

 

 

Where did you get these ideas from?