talasiga

<u>DUTTIYAM PI</u>

Originally posted by talasiga:

 

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.

 

 

<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].

Originally posted by JRdd:

I too welcome Stonehearted's comments. (The snide remarks being made about his character simply lend an acid flavor to this otherwise wonderful thread. No devotee likes to see another devotee insulted.)

 

Originally posted by livingentity:

Dear Stonehearted, .................................

Nothing you said "peeved" me ...............................

 

 

Originally posted by jndas:

Sometimes we rely on our material vision to judge that which is immeasurable. ..............................

Thus we come to conclusions like, "Oh, he may have done devotional service, but look he smoked!" ...............................

Then we take our misconceptions one step further, and conclude, "He may have been chanting Hare Krishna at the time of death, but at different times in his life he smoked. Whats so great about him?"

 

The shastras warn us about looking for defects in the devotees of the Lord. ...........................................

 

Stonehearted never said these things.

The fact that you see his statement

"He also liked to race cars, smoke cigarettes, and other things we may be less than excited about acknowledging",

as necessarily pointing out some defects,

shows that you yourself see these aspects

as defects.

Stonehearted also posted other statement of facts such as:-

"Yes, he supported some Krishna conscious projects, but he also supported many other activities, such as helping those suffering in war-torn Bangladesh and raising money for the Natural Law Party."

This doesn't look like a put down to me at all.

He is also courageous enough to suggest:

" But let's get a grip on ourselves and resist the tendency so prevalent in our culture to get carried away by celebrity."

This appears to be an appeal to our sense of integrity.

I find very little that is is defective

in devotee Stonehearted's posting.

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).]

PRAYER 9

Say Sweet Lord !

Let me know when you are touched

I rarely know what it is I am feeling .....

.

.

.

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

talasiga@hotmail.com

Originally posted by stonehearted:

I'm not particularly disturbed by folks like this Lederman fellow, or by what people think of George Harrison's spiritual life. He generally made a point of keeping these things pretty private. I'm somewhat amused by the frenzy I see by so many associated with Krishna consciousness to lay some sort of claim to this man and his identity. In fact, he resisted that during his life. Yes, he practiced Krishna consciousness to some degree over the last 30-odd years. He also liked to race cars, smoke cigarettes, and other things we may be less than excited about acknowledging. Yes, he supported some Krishna conscious projects, but he also supported many other activities, such as helping those suffering in war-torn Bangladesh and raising money for the Natural Law Party.

 

At the end of his life, he took shelter of the holy name of Krishna and the association of old friends, among whom are some of our Godbrothers. That's a wonderful thing, perhapsw evidence, as some have speculated, that he was a kripa-siddha. The fact that he did so in a very private way should indicate to us how we should deal with it ourselves.

 

It's natural that those who felt their lives touched by his music and his association with Krishna consciousness express their sadness that he's no longer among us. But let's get a grip on ourselves and resist the tendency so prevalent in our culture to get carried away by celebrity.

 

I apologize if this offends anyone.

I see nothing offensive in this

1. statements of feelings

2. observations

3. statements of fact

other than the insinuation that some unspecified others are laying

"some sort of claim to [George] and his identity"

which has the potential to offend some who identify with it.

All I can say is

"If the cap fits, wear it."

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 12-05-2001).]

Originally posted by leyh:

Was my answer in accordance with Vedic philsophy?

The Vedic answer is self luminous

and needs no approbation .

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]

Wormwood !

Another healing herb

Another Sacred herb

Will you not accept Her Grace ?

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.......

<u>Topic: Instilling proper habits [in the parents] in childhood </u>

My children are now in their early twenties.

Since their birth they have been instilling

me with greater

1. Self-Discipline

2. Compassion

3. Responsibility

4. Friendship

5. Work

6. Courage

7. Perseverance

8. Honesty

9. Loyalty

10. Faith

They love me dearly

though they understand me not a jot.

They are "kids" cos I am a goat.

Some other "kids" have sheep for parents.

I have recorded my "Vale Song"

at 5:27AM 1 December 2001 posting

on this thread:-

http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000467-3.html?

<u>Topic: Bead Bags </u>

Gauracandra: By the way, is there any Singapore temple website? or do they want to keep a low profile in the country.

gauraprema: I remember the time when the Singapore temple was called Shiv Mandir because the devotees were not allowed to use the names of Krishna, neither were they allowed to be 'officially' affiliated to ISKCON.

Talasiga: Hmmm ...

Shiv Mandir - hardly a <u>low</u> profile as "Shiva" means "Auspicious".

Speaking of the Auspicious, anyone seen a bead bag for Raudraraksha beads - the ones as big as plums ?

Originally posted by talasiga:

And some do not need scripture to promote

their love of God.

 

 

Tarun: Talasigaji: what about guru/zAstra/sAdhu?

Breastfeeding's benefits cannot be denied, even empirically.

But Love of God, KRSNa-prema is not so easy, not so obvious.

Human Breastmilk may be thin, but not as thin/subtle as anurAga.

Talasiga: My dear Tarun, In the above quote I have

SIMPLY made an observation about "some"

and not a prescription for all.

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

talasiga@hotmail.com

<u>Topic: The Development of Devotional Movements in India </u>

Originally posted by talasiga:

"The Sufi techniques of inducing ecstasy, such as dancing, music, repetition of the name of God, and the recital of love poems were adopted by Chaitanya (1486-1533), the prophet of Vaishnavism in Bengal."

 

- Mohinder Singh Randhawa & Doris Schreier Randhawa

 

..........

..........

Satyaraj: Yes, some darsanas do stress that the holy names are the means as well as the end itself. So, they defend the Tantra as the mean and as the end itself. The same propounders, however, also stress that there are at least six different stages in the chanting progress until the aim.

But these explanations are also very subtle. To reach the stage of bhava, an intermediate stage between the ritualistic and neophyte stage and prema, they prescribe sambhanda-jñana as essential. In other words, scriptures should be read and heard from a right source to attain this stage.

Therefore one may ask: “What is the real cause of this sambhanda-jñana? Is it nama or is it the study of sastra?”

talasiga: These stages must only be incidental and not causative.

For instance, in the case of a flooded river with a 3 metre peak rise in the water level, the 1 metre and the 2 metre water levels are only incidental. If one were to say that the 3 metre flood was caused by the 2 metre flood which in turn was caused by the 1 metre flood, such a mistaken appraisal of causation could proceed ad infinitum.

(i.e. to smaller and smaller causative measurements like 0.1 of a metre, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, 0.00001, 0.000001, 0.0000001, etc)!

____________________________

Similarly, the impetus for change within Hinduism purportedly due to the developing movement of Islam in the Indian sub-continent, may also be appraised as incidental and not causative.

We, of course, know that Bhakti Yoga existed thousands of years before Prophet Mohammed was born. However it was Lord Chaitanya (about eight centuries after Mohammed) who broke the barriers and promoted the first Bhakti movement that appealed to, encouraged and empowered <u>participation regardless of caste, race and creed</u> in a Hindu society bound on all sides by proscriptions and prescriptions based on caste, race and creed.

In the context of Medieval India, such a catholic movement may easily be recognised as analogous to the the operative terrain of Islam at that time and her elder sister, Christianity.

So, was the Islam which was a vehicle for the minority mystic movement of Sufism, substantially causative of the catholic Bhakti (Chaitanyaite) movement or simply incidental ?

Or, perhaps, it is coincidental: wherever there exists a religious culture, at some point it will blossom into the flower of mystic adoration in the Divine Life (Essenes amonst the Jews, the Sufis in Islam, the Ecstatic Ones of Christianity and Hinduism).

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

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).]

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.

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 !)

<u> Vale George Harrison.</u>

Originally posted by talasiga:

The ferry of devotion

finds Radha waiting

at every shore

 

 

IMPLICATION 14:-

Is She waiting for Her Sweet Lord ?

Is She singing "My Sweet Lord" ?

And will She touch the ferry

before it touches the shore ?

.

.

.

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

talasiga@hotmail.com

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

Talasiga: However, in other situations the substance of the process is non-different to the goal, although there will be difference of magnitude.

Satyaraj: Yes, the supporters of the Vedic viewpoint state that Hari is Himself the sacrifice, as stated in many sruti texts. So, sacrifices are non-different than the goal, and should be always performed.

The supporters of the Pañcaratric viewpoint state that nama is non-different than Hari Himself and it is obviously non-different than the goal, so, nama should be always chanted.

There are those who consider that nama-japa is the greatest sacrifice and therefore they support a mixed method.

But Badarayana Rsi is of the opinion that sacrifices and other religious methods should be abandoned as soon as jñana is present. (Vedanta-sutra 3.4.13) He ponders many other opinions, but that one should be the prevalent.

No one steps a stair with the only perspective of to step it; in other words the aim is different than the stair. So, the different stages within sanatana-dharma progress should be considered as only a stair, and not as aims by themselves. The real aim is beyond any step.

Talasiga: Yes, in the case of allopathic medicine being taken to cure an illness, the medicine is phased out or discarded once health is achieved. One does not continue to take antibiotics after an infection is overcome and the prescribed course is completed.

However, in the case of a natural therapy, such as the Grape Diet cure for a serious illness, one may eat grapes and green leaves for some time and, in many cases, effect a cure. Now, in such a situation there is no harm or necessity for the healthy person to discard eating grapes when good health is reached. In fact the very food that was once taken remedially now becomes the food of healthy celebration.

Yes, there are some sadhikas who practice all sorts of strange and severe austerities to attract the attention of the Divine. Do you think that, if and when they reach God, they will continue to tie a 20 kg weight to their penis in His presence ? Or surround themselves with a ritualistic circle of fire in the very diwan that Sudama is sitting down and offering Krishna his village rice ?

Of course these practices will be discarded as no longer relevant.

In contrast, chanting the Holy Names may be a ritualistic process but surely when the Divine is realised the content of that process (the Holy Names) become a celebration of the Presence. Cannot you even, intellectually, conceive and acknowledge this ? Cannot you see that it is the ritualistic context that is subrated by reaching the goal but the content of that former process then continues in the context of Beatitude ?

Just imagine that you have invited a long-lost favourite friend to dinner.

You have lit a candle in anticipation of his or her arrival. When the friend does arrive, will you put the candle out ?

Or will that candle now serve to illuminate your discourse ?

Yes,

just imagine

how could the best of friends

play chess unless they sit at opposite ends ?

One must be black the other white

Another game vice versa

Black and white,

white and black

Yet just see the beautiful colours between them !

Topic: The Development of Devotional Movements in India

Talasiga: Lama Anagarika Govinda has discussed the differences between the Buddhist Tant[r]ism and the Hindu Tantrism. If I recall correctly, he proposes that the latter is a perversion of the earlier Buddhist Tantrism

 

Satyaraj: I’d heard from some of my Gaudiya teachers that Buddhists in general follow the Gautama-tantra that is included into Narada-Pañcaratra. That’s why many of the Buddhist’s practices are very similar to Gaudiyas’.

 

 

From page 94 et seq of Lama Anagarika Govinda's Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism Rider & Company, London (there is no ISBN in my 1967 impression of this book):-

"The influence of Tantric Buddhism upon Hinduism was so profound, that up to the present day, the majority of Western scholars labour under the impression that Tantrism is a hinduistic creation which was taken over by later more or less decadent Buddhist Schools.

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

"To declare Buddhist Tantrism as an off-shoot of Shivaism is only possible for those who have no first-hand knowledge of Tantric literature. A comparison of Hindu Tantras with those of Buddhism (which are mostly in Tibetan and which therefore have long remained unnoticed by Indologists) not only shows an astonishing divergence of methods and aims, in spite of external similarities, but proves the spiritual and historical priority and originality of the Buddhist Tantras.

"[shankara-Achaarya], the great Hindu philosopher......made use of the ideas of [Naagaarjuna] and his followers to such an extent that orthodox Hindus suspected him of being a secret devotee of Buddhism. In a similar way the Hindu Tantras, too, took over the methods and principles of Buddhist Tantrism to their own purposes (just as the Buddhists had adapted the age-old principles and techniques of yoga to their own systems of meditation). This view is not only held by Tibetan tradition and confirmed by a study of its literature, but has been verified also by Indian scholars after a critical investigation of the earlier texts of Tantric Buddhism and their historical and ideological relationship to the Hindu Tantras.

"Thus Benoytosh Bhattacharyya in his Introduction to Buddhist Esoterism has come to the conclusion that 'it is possible to declare, without fear of contradiction, that the Buddhists were the first to introduce the Tantras into their religion, and that the Hindus borrowed them from the Buddhists in later times, and that it is idle to say that later Buddhism was an outcome of [shivaism]' (p.147).

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

"To judge Buddhist Tantric teachings and symbols from the standpoint of Hindu Tantras, and especially from the principles of [shaktism] is not only inadequate but thoroughly misleading, because both systems start from entirely different premisses. As little as we can declare Buddhism to be identical with Brahmanism, because both make use of Yoga methods and of similar technical and philosophical terms, as little is it permissible to interpret the Buddhist Tantras in the light of Hindu Tantras and vice versa.

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

"It is impossible to understand any religious movement, unless we approach it in a spirit of humility and reverence, which is the hall-mark of all great scholars and pioneers of learning. We therefore have to see the various forms of expression in their genetic connexions and against the spiritual background from which they developed in their particular system, before we start comparing them with similar features in other systems. In fact the very things which appear similar on the surface are very often just those in which the systems differ most fundamentally. The same step that leads upwards in one connexion may well lead downwards in another one. Therefore, philological derivations and iconographical comparisons, valuable though they may be in other respects, are not adequate here."

(text emboldened by Talasiga)

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 11-30-2001).]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Talasiga: You must be using "tantra" in a broad sense. .....................................................

Satyaraj: Yes, I am employing ‘Tantra’ in a broad sense, mainly as a process. ........................................

A process oriented usage. This is good.

Tantra implies process just as Vedanta implies the absolute goal.

All cultures comprehend some aspect of process orientation

towards divinity or, at least, supra-mundane consciousness.

Ultimately these processes are quenched by a trancendent divinity

where being is devoid of context (ie. sat-chid-ananda) or,

an immanent divinity where the plenitude of being is contextual

(ie. sat-chid-ananda-vigraha).

In many situations the instruments of process are discarded or,

better still: subrated, once the goal is reached.

(eg taking medecines in illnes. Once the illness is overcome

the medecines are phased out)

However, in other situations the substance of the process

is non-different to the goal, although there will be difference of magnitude.

For instance, one begins with a small grape vine to end up

with a large grape vine. The small vine is not discarded

to obtain the large grape vine but it is maintained under

certain conditions of nurture and itself transforms

to attain its fully realised state.

Now, in relation to divine immanence, it is possible to speak

of a Vedantic Tantra - one whose process, methods and instruments,

are of such a nature that, after divine realisation,

they continue to be utilised as the paraphernalia of the perennial divine life.

This point is predicated on the understanding that immanent divinity (Saguna-Brahman) is by definition, a spiritual life in the context of name and form, as contrasted with trancendent divinity (Nirguna-Brahman) which is an abstract divinity without relationship and therefore devoid of context.

.

.

.

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

talasiga@hotmail.com

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 11-30-2001).]

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).]