Three unsuccessful attempts of personal freedom

[lightgigantic]

I feel a sudden passion to eat and I eat a good meal and the passion to eat is no longer there. Same with sex. (I know, you think the only possibility is that you suffer with these things, especially sex, but you are incorrect)

Sometimes I feel this overwhelming urge to be in the woods. I go there. I love it.

What gets called passion certainly can lead to problems. So can the belief in God, which you seem to have. It seems to me everyone who believes in God has problems. Still you believe in God.

the use of the word passion (in this thread) bears reference to a state of being called "rajas" in sanskrit

to see in what ways it does and does not relate to its common english usage desire etc), you would have to read the OP

 

[greenberg]

Goodness - The first is introspective and is based on “being” – regardless of whatever good or ill fortune comes one’s way, the focus is on not being emotionally crushed but rather the maintenance of virtue – one’s faith is invested in the present

Passion - The second is sometimes referred to as “instrumentalism”. The passionate instrumentalist uses their mind and senses like tools, to locate and dig up treasures buried deep within material nature--riches, rare pleasures, sources of energy, cosmic secrets—that one hopes will serve the needs of the human race. One’s outlook is prospective, since one’s faith is invested in the future. Thus "becoming" is far more important than "being."

Ignorance – The third is retrospective in one’s outlook, in that in one’s heart one nurses unending dismay, anger and frustration about one’s past experience. Thus one sees hope neither in the present nor future. One chooses to cancel out further involvement in this world by negating one’s personal self. There are demanding, highly disciplined philosophical systems dedicated to losing one's self; but in today's Western world, many people try it the easy way, through alcohol, drugs and suicide.

The person in the mode of goodness seeks freedom in being rather than becoming. The person in the mode of passion seeks freedom in becoming rather than being. The person in the mode of ignorance seeks freedom in non-being, or nihilism.

Good people struggle to be free from the loss of the self to material attraction. Passionate people have no problem with losing themselves in that way. But they struggle to get free from the problems that result from their attraction to matter. The ignorant person claims freedom by disclaiming the importance of the struggles of goodness and passion. He thinks eternal life and worldly happiness are impossible, and the effort to attain them is a waste, an absurdity, a nothingness.

Inasmuch as one is captivated by these three outlooks, real freedom is impossible. Thus after many attempts at finding freedom in these ways, one may become inclined to transcend matter altogether. But to transcend matter, one must transcend the interest to wield power over the material world--the power of aloofness from the world (goodness), the power to control it (passion), and the power to negate it (ignorance). These powers belong to God. The material bondage of the soul is caused by imitating the power of God, who alone is the all-powerful master. It is impossible to become God. The attempt to imitate Him brings the soul under the influence of these three states of being.

In otherwords, the attempt to find personal freedom through one of the above referenced outlooks is the very means of entanglement.

But what about the person who has found that those three above referenced outlooks are insufficient, but who finds themselves unable to believe in God?

 

[lightgigantic]

But what about the person who has found that those three above referenced outlooks are insufficient, but who finds themselves unable to believe in God?

you might find something to re-establish your point of view by going over some of the points between cris and myself

eg

“
So what is freedom?
”
proper knowledge of

1. what one is
2. what this phenomenal world is
3. what is the ultimate cause of these things

etc etc

 

[greenberg]

you might find something to re-establish your point of view by going over some of the points between cris and myself

eg

“
So what is freedom?
”
proper knowledge of

1. what one is
2. what this phenomenal world is
3. what is the ultimate cause of these things

etc etc

Allright. But as far as I can see, it would take time, proper practice and proper guidance to establish answers to these points.
I have several fears here:

1. That God wouldn't accept that it would take time, proper practice and proper guidance to establish answers to these points - and would instead demand immediate obedience, or send me to hell, possibly eternal hell.

2. That I wouldn't have the wisdom and the goodwill to persist in the practice, and instead become apathetic and give up, or practice only half-heartedly.

3. That the people around me who seem more advanced than myself and whom I depend upon to teach me about God, would press me and abandon me if I wouldn't make progress as they say that I should.

- These fears are basically why I became apathetic toward practising Christianity: I couldn't keep up with the demands presented to me. I am afraid to get into something like that again.

You know, from my Christian perspective -and if I look at my mind's first reactions, most of them are still thoroughly Christian- your views are overly generous and kind, blasphemous even, indulging human frailty and vanity.

 

[lightgigantic]

Allright. But as far as I can see, it would take time, proper practice and proper guidance to establish answers to these points.
I have several fears here:

1. That God wouldn't accept that it would take time, proper practice and proper guidance to establish answers to these points - and would instead demand immediate obedience, or send me to hell, possibly eternal hell.

in the material world, the time factor is eternal ... so god (as well as ourselves) has all the time in the world. Whether we learn things by the school of hard knocks or not depends on us

2. That I wouldn't have the wisdom and the goodwill to persist in the practice, and instead become apathetic and give up, or practice only half-heartedly.

this is mentioned

BG 2.40: In this endeavor there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear.

and more specifically

BG 6.37: Arjuna said: O Kṛṣṇa, what is the destination of the unsuccessful transcendentalist, who in the beginning takes to the process of self-realization with faith but who later desists due to worldly-mindedness and thus does not attain perfection in mysticism?

BG 6.38: O mighty-armed Kṛṣṇa, does not such a man, who is bewildered from the path of transcendence, fall away from both spiritual and material success and perish like a riven cloud, with no position in any sphere?

BG 6.39: This is my doubt, O Kṛṣṇa, and I ask You to dispel it completely. But for You, no one is to be found who can destroy this doubt.

BG 6.40: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Son of Pṛthā, a transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities does not meet with destruction either in this world or in the spiritual world; one who does good, My friend, is never overcome by evil.

BG 6.41: The unsuccessful yogī, after many, many years of enjoyment on the planets of the pious living entities, is born into a family of righteous people, or into a family of rich aristocracy.

BG 6.42: Or [if unsuccessful after long practice of yoga] he takes his birth in a family of transcendentalists who are surely great in wisdom. Certainly, such a birth is rare in this world.

3. That the people around me who seem more advanced than myself and whom I depend upon to teach me about God, would press me and abandon me if I wouldn't make progress as they say that I should.

basically pressure is only meaningful in the medium of a loving relationship - if a person applies pressure when that bond of friendship/love is not made, they simply come across as a jerk or something

- These fears are basically why I became apathetic toward practising Christianity: I couldn't keep up with the demands presented to me. I am afraid to get into something like that again.

You know, from my Christian perspective -and if I look at my mind's first reactions, most of them are still thoroughly Christian- your views are overly generous and kind, blasphemous even, indulging human frailty and vanity.

maybe one of these days we should discuss hell according to the vedas

 

[greenberg]

in the material world, the time factor is eternal ... so god (as well as ourselves) has all the time in the world. Whether we learn things by the school of hard knocks or not depends on us

It depends on us? How?
You said elsewhere:

BG 3.5 Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.

If everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature, then how is there free will, how can there be choosing and deciding?

BG 2.40
and
BG 6.37 - 6.42

Heh. I told you before about the importance of believing in karma and rebirth! If all one sees is this lifetime and believes there is nothing more, or if one has no stance about what happens before birth and after death, life can be extremely difficult to bear, hopeless even.

basically pressure is only meaningful in the medium of a loving relationship - if a person applies pressure when that bond of friendship/love is not made, they simply come across as a jerk or something

I know.

maybe one of these days we should discuss hell according to the vedas

Yes, that would be interesting.

 

[Sarkus]

proper knowledge of
1. what one is
2. what this phenomenal world is
3. what is the ultimate cause of these things

And how exactly does this give us personal freedom?
And what exactly is "proper knowledge"?

It seems that these stem from your personal view (well, your indoctrinated view) of what "personal freedom" entails - but who is to say that it is also everyone else's?

 

[lightgigantic]

And how exactly does this give us personal freedom?
And what exactly is "proper knowledge"?

It seems that these stem from your personal view (well, your indoctrinated view) of what "personal freedom" entails - but who is to say that it is also everyone else's?

the basic idea is that there are absolute definitions or understandings of these things - for instance there may be numerous comprehensions of what is meant by the word "self" - but one who has a proper understanding of it can reconcile all these different understandings

 

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
in the material world, the time factor is eternal ... so god (as well as ourselves) has all the time in the world. Whether we learn things by the school of hard knocks or not depends on us
”
It depends on us? How?
You said elsewhere:

BG 3.5 Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.

If everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature, then how is there free will, how can there be choosing and deciding?

the next two verses read

BG 3.6: One who restrains the senses of action but whose mind dwells on sense objects certainly deludes himself and is called a pretender.

BG 3.7: On the other hand, if a sincere person tries to control the active senses by the mind and begins karma-yoga [in Kṛṣṇa consciousness] without attachment, he is by far superior.

IOW you cannot stop material nature by trying to stop action - rather you stop material nature by adopting spiritual action.
Whether we adopt spiritual or material action is nobody's business but our own

“
BG 2.40
and
BG 6.37 - 6.42
”
Heh. I told you before about the importance of believing in karma and rebirth! If all one sees is this lifetime and believes there is nothing more, or if one has no stance about what happens before birth and after death, life can be extremely difficult to bear, hopeless even.

“
basically pressure is only meaningful in the medium of a loving relationship - if a person applies pressure when that bond of friendship/love is not made, they simply come across as a jerk or something
”
I know.

lol - I guess its a common experience

“
maybe one of these days we should discuss hell according to the vedas
”
Yes, that would be interesting.

might be better to discuss it via PM (otherwise the thread will turn into an IPU/FSM topic within three posts - I guarantee you)

Discussing it openly could be laborious

 

[Sarkus]

the basic idea is that there are absolute definitions or understandings of these things

And these are?

for instance there may be numerous comprehensions of what is meant by the word "self" - but one who has a proper understanding of it can reconcile all these different understandings

And, for instance, the proper understanding is...?

Or is this only achieved through the same "believe to believe" pursuit that all your other claims seem to require...e.g. theory -> practice (which involves believing) -> belief.
i.e. if you believe you will have belief.
If you don't it is because you are not practicing (i.e. believing) properly.


And I'm guessing that within 3 posts you'll probably turn this into "high-school dropout" analogy territory again.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the basic idea is that there are absolute definitions or understandings of these things
”
And these are?

the main subjects of theistic investigation and discussion

for instance there may be numerous comprehensions of what is meant by the word "self" - but one who has a proper understanding of it can reconcile all these different understandings
”
And, for instance, the proper understanding is...?

probably a little difficult to explain unless one has a succinct comprehension how it exists separate from the body and mind.
I think we have gone over this issues before ("self as context" vs "conceived self")

Or is this only achieved through the same "believe to believe" pursuit that all your other claims seem to require...e.g. theory -> practice (which involves believing) -> belief.

actually the last step was "conclusion" not "belief"

i.e. if you believe you will have belief.

actually its more like if you apply the theory correctly you arrive at the conclusion

If you don't it is because you are not practicing (i.e. believing) properly.

well, if you don't do it, you don't practice, so the whole system grinds to a halt right there

And I'm guessing that within 3 posts you'll probably turn this into "high-school dropout" analogy territory again.

if you want to continue with the line of thought that issues of evidence can be approached without addressing issues of qualification, we could strike up that analogy in less than two

 

[Sarkus]

the main subjects of theistic investigation and discussion

I was asking for the absolute definitions or understandings. Care to share them?
Or maybe you were admiting you don't know?
Or maybe they aren't known - and their existence is just an assumption... a belief? Gosh. Where does that seem familiar.

probably a little difficult to explain unless one has a succinct comprehension how it exists separate from the body and mind.
I think we have gone over this issues before ("self as context" vs "conceived self")

Ah yes - you need to believe to believe.

actually the last step was "conclusion" not "belief"

You at least know how it should work... that's something, I guess.

actually its more like if you apply the theory correctly you arrive at the conclusion

But when your theory requires "belief" you end up "believing". Go figure.

if you want to continue with the line of thought that issues of evidence can be approached without addressing issues of qualification, we could strike up that analogy in less than two

Nope - I'm still going with three.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the main subjects of theistic investigation and discussion
”
I was asking for the absolute definitions or understandings. Care to share them?
Or maybe you were admiting you don't know?
Or maybe they aren't known - and their existence is just an assumption... a belief? Gosh. Where does that seem familiar.

or alternatively, it could be a broad subject and not really worth the effort to explain to someone who has already made up their mind on the value of it ... but anyway, if you think you know better, fine.
“

probably a little difficult to explain unless one has a succinct comprehension how it exists separate from the body and mind.
I think we have gone over this issues before ("self as context" vs "conceived self")
”
Ah yes - you need to believe to believe.

erm, not really, but anyway .....

“
actually the last step was "conclusion" not "belief"
”
You at least know how it should work... that's something, I guess.

yes, I guess it is something

“
actually its more like if you apply the theory correctly you arrive at the conclusion
”
But when your theory requires "belief" you end up "believing". Go figure.

well since all theory has an element of inductive knowledge to bridge the gap to practical application, it seems you have contentions with knowledge in general, outside of any specific requirements of religiosity

“
if you want to continue with the line of thought that issues of evidence can be approached without addressing issues of qualification, we could strike up that analogy in less than two

”
Nope - I'm still going with three.

whatever
:shrug:

 

[Enmos]

The ignorant person claims freedom by disclaiming the importance of the struggles of goodness and passion. He thinks eternal life and worldly happiness are impossible, and the effort to attain them is a waste, an absurdity, a nothingness.

You really meant 'atheists' here in stead of 'ignorant persons', right ?
Is this yet another rant against atheism ?

 

[lightgigantic]

You really meant 'atheists' here in stead of 'ignorant persons', right ?
Is this yet another rant against atheism ?

no
there are also some spiritual disciplines that do not perceive the self as ultimately composed of anything substantial (eg mayavada)

and alternatively, you can also find (quite) a lot of atheistic expression in passionate circles too