How do these definitions sit with you?
Just curious how these things appeal or don't appeal to people in general ...

It was interesting, I couldn't find agreement with any of them.

seriously - I would have thought these would have struck something even amongst our predominantly atheistic community here

Real modesty is to be disgusted with improper activities

one who is enriched with good qualities is actually said to be rich

and one who is unsatisfied in life is actually poor

Full opulence consists of full strength, intelligence, beauty, wealth, renunciation, and fame
Renunciation, wealth and fame?
Don't sit too well together.
And look up the word "opulence", it relates to wealth only usually.

The supreme gain in life is devotional service to God,
Assuming there is a god.

actual education is nullifying the false perception of duality within the soul
Assuming there is a soul.

Real modesty is to be disgusted with improper activities
Rubbish.
What's an "improper activity"?

and beauty is to possess good qualities such as detachment
Detachment is part of beauty?
How so?

Real happiness is to transcend material happiness and unhappiness
:confused:
Assuming there's more than type of happiness.

and real misery is to be implicated in searching for sex pleasure
Getting further off-track.

A wise man is one who knows the process of freedom from bondage
and a fool is one who identifies with his material body and mind
So wisdom doesn't bring happiness?

The real path in life is that which leads to God
Who is this god guy?

and the wrong path is sense gratification, by which consciousness is bewildered
Denying what we are (physical beings) isn't going to do much for ourselves is it?

Actual heaven is the predominance of the mode of goodness
ACTUAL heaven?
Define goodness.

whereas hell is the predominance of ignorance
And the ignorant can't be educated?
You were in hell at the age of 3? 4?

God is everyone's true friend, acting as the guru of the entire universe
and one's home is the human body
This god guy keeps poking his nose in.
And if our home is the human body why not gratify our senses?

one who is enriched with good qualities is actually said to be rich
Nope, someone with a lot of money is said to be rich.

and one who is unsatisfied in life is actually poor
Different dictionary from everyone else?

A wretched person is one who cannot control his senses
Control your senses?
Must...work...on...x...ray...vision.

one who is not attached to sense gratification is a real controller
Nope, just not attached.

to constantly see good and bad is itself a bad quality
Unless, of, course, good and bad are all around...
Oh wait, if I keep my eyes shut does that make me a better person?

The best quality is to transcend material good and evil
The dead have done that - is dead a "quality" worth pursuing?

How do these definitions sit with you?
Just curious how these things appeal or don't appeal to people in general ...


The supreme gain in life is devotional service to God. In a very abstract sense, I suppose, but not meaning some kind of regimen and humility and being good all time or feeling that one's personal will and desire is somehow against God.




Real modesty is to be disgusted with improper activities

That just sounds horrible. But I don't know what you mean by improper activities. Screaming 'nigger' or beating a child are certainly disgusting activities but I can't see where modesty comes in.

and beauty is to possess good qualities such as detachment
No. My mother is beautiful and she is very attached to me. As one example amongst billions.

and real misery is to be implicated in searching for sex pleasure
'Implicated' ??? So it's not the searching, it's if someone implicates you??? In any case no. Sexual pleasure is as much a part of God as anything else.

The dead have done that - is dead a "quality" worth pursuing?

:wtf:

:wtf:

Being dead means you are beyond good and evil.
So by LG's logic being dead is something to aspire to.

Strange logic there.;)

I specialise in strange logic :D
If you are beyond good and evil then you can't be interacting with the world, you might as well be dead.

I specialise in strange logic :D
If you are beyond good and evil then you can't be interacting with the world, you might as well be dead.


:roflmao:

this seems like stuff straight out of the Dhammapada

A wretched person is one who cannot control his senses

A wretched person is one who sees controlling parts of him or herself as a good goal. One who aspires to dominate themselves like dictators dominate other people. One who does on the inside the very things they often dislike most about what other people do on the outside.

one who is not attached to sense gratification is a real controller

Being a 'controller' is not necessarily a positive thing. And it would be good for most guys (and gals, but more the guys) to know that if someone calls you a controller they are probably not feeling great about it. And for good reason. Often those who control themselves judge others for not controlling themselves. This superiority can be isolating. But it's certainly a choice.

to constantly see good and bad is itself a bad quality

You have referred to 'wrong' paths, to being disgusted as a positive thing, and clearly see desire for sex as bad. You may use other words, but your assertions (or these assertions if they are not yours) are setting up a rather strict set of 'good and bad'. It is just another set of good and bad. And not a very honest one.


The best quality is to transcend material good and evil

I doubt it, but it is so abstract I am not sure it means anything.

Being dead means you are beyond good and evil.
So by LG's logic being dead is something to aspire to.

There is a great deal of distaste for life and a yearning to be more deathlike in this kind of philosophy. You've hit the nail on the head. They cannot see how this is a philosophy of self-hatred. Desire, emotions, reacting negatively, sexual desire are all seen as bad. Anti-life and it's really sad how many have gone down this road.

"Actual opulence is My own nature as the Personality of Godhead, through which I exhibit the six unlimited opulences. The supreme gain in life is devotional service to Me, and actual education is nullifying the false perception of duality within the soul. Real modesty is to be disgusted with improper activities, and beauty is to possess good qualities such as detachment. Real happiness is to transcend material happiness and unhappiness, and real misery is to be implicated in searching for sex pleasure. A wise man is one who knows the process of freedom from bondage, and a fool is one who identifies with his material body and mind. The real path in life is that which leads to Me, and the wrong path is sense gratification, by which consciousness is bewildered. Actual heaven is the predominance of the mode of goodness, whereas hell is the predominance of ignorance. I am everyone's true friend, acting as the spiritual master of the entire universe, and one's home is the human body. My dear friend Uddhava, one who is enriched with good qualities is actually said to be rich, and one who is unsatisfied in life is actually poor. A wretched person is one who cannot control his senses, whereas one who is not attached to sense gratification is a real controller. One who attaches himself to sense gratification is the opposite, a slave. Thus, Uddhava, I have elucidated all of the matters about which you inquired. There is no need for a more elaborate description of these good and bad qualities, since to constantly see good and bad is itself a bad quality. The best quality is to transcend material good and evil" - Krishna (SB 11.19.40-45)

Oli

Full opulence consists of full strength, intelligence, beauty, wealth, renunciation, and fame ”
Renunciation, wealth and fame?
Don't sit too well together.
And look up the word "opulence", it relates to wealth only usually.
therefore amongst two equivalently wealthy people, the greater would be the one who wouldn’t commit suicide if they lost it all (to be renounced from something doesn’t mean that one abhors something – it means that one can continue undisturbed either in its presence or absence)
“ The supreme gain in life is devotional service to God, ”
Assuming there is a god.
“ actual education is nullifying the false perception of duality within the soul ”
Assuming there is a soul.
There’s probably enough threads on the religion forum that discuss this
“ Real modesty is to be disgusted with improper activities ”
Rubbish.
What's an "improper activity"?
You don’t have a conception of what is proper?
“ and beauty is to possess good qualities such as detachment ”
Detachment is part of beauty?
How so?
real beauty lies in character
“ Real happiness is to transcend material happiness and unhappiness ”

Assuming there's more than type of happiness.
there are several types of happiness, but in short they boil down to two varieties
one type involves further suffering down the track
another type remains free from such suffering
“ and real misery is to be implicated in searching for sex pleasure ”
Getting further off-track.
I take it you are a bachelor
“ A wise man is one who knows the process of freedom from bondage
and a fool is one who identifies with his material body and mind ”
So wisdom doesn't bring happiness?
identifying with the body (which is temporary and subject to various diseases) and the mind (which is constantly assailed by miseries for every pleasure conceived in the form of unlimited dualities, eg pleasure/pain, hot/cold etc) brings happiness?
“ and the wrong path is sense gratification, by which consciousness is bewildered ”
Denying what we are (physical beings) isn't going to do much for ourselves is it?
taking what one requires to live is perfectly sound (and even recommended) – taking more than what one requires, which is the frequent expedition of sense gratification, certainly destroys the physical nature of ourselves
“ Actual heaven is the predominance of the mode of goodness ”
ACTUAL heaven?
Define goodness.
refers to sattva-guna – in short, the state of being that enables one to see things as they actually are (ie free from selfishness, lethargy, envy, lust etc and all the other elements that frequently interfere with our perception)
“ whereas hell is the predominance of ignorance ”
And the ignorant can't be educated?
if they can, ignorance won’t predominate I guess

You were in hell at the age of 3? 4?
there are more predominately ignorant states of ignorance than merely being 3 or 4 years old
“ God is everyone's true friend, acting as the guru of the entire universe
and one's home is the human body ”
This god guy keeps poking his nose in.
make of it what you will ....

And if our home is the human body why not gratify our senses?
because that’s the easiest way to lose the human form of life and enter into the animal species
“ one who is enriched with good qualities is actually said to be rich ”
Nope, someone with a lot of money is said to be rich.
yes, that’s the common understanding .... never mind how neurotic they are
“ and one who is unsatisfied in life is actually poor ”
Different dictionary from everyone else?
depends whether the point of “wealth” is for deriving satisfaction or not
“ A wretched person is one who cannot control his senses ”
Control your senses?
you know – tongue, stomach, etc
“ one who is not attached to sense gratification is a real controller ”
Nope, just not attached.
if you can’t control yourself (meaning your senses) whatever position of power one may hold is a farce
“ to constantly see good and bad is itself a bad quality ”
Unless, of, course, good and bad are all around...
all around in the realm of duality (ie material world) yes

Oh wait, if I keep my eyes shut does that make me a better person?
no, because if one remains in ignorance one will continue to see duality, regardless whether one keeps their eyes open or closed
“ The best quality is to transcend material good and evil ”
The dead have done that - is dead a "quality" worth pursuing?
assuming that after death transcendence is automatic

“ Grantywanty

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
How do these definitions sit with you?
Just curious how these things appeal or don't appeal to people in general ... ”

“ The supreme gain in life is devotional service to God. ”
In a very abstract sense, I suppose, but not meaning some kind of regimen and humility and being good all time or feeling that one's personal will and desire is somehow against God.
why would one hold one’s expression of regimen/humility/being good all the time/feeling that one’s will is against god as impediments/impediments to the performance of service?
In other words doesn’t the notion of service imply that you simply do what is required and suspend one’s personal likes/dislikes?



“ Real modesty is to be disgusted with improper activities ”
That just sounds horrible. But I don't know what you mean by improper activities. Screaming 'nigger' or beating a child are certainly disgusting activities but I can't see where modesty comes in.
hrih (modesty) is sometimes translated as shyness – in other words the ability to feel not only embarrassment about improper activities but disgust is what is real modesty (If you were totally disgusted by the notion of beating an infant, you wouldn’t do it and you wouldn’t stand to see others do it)
“ and beauty is to possess good qualities such as detachment ”
No. My mother is beautiful and she is very attached to me. As one example amongst billions.
if your mother beat you up and swore at you constantly would you describe her as beautiful?
In other words real beauty is perceived as the possession of good qualities
(as for attachment, that is the prime cause of bad qualities – for instance if your mother was so attached to you that she forbade you to leave the house and locked you in the room (even though you are 33), you would probably insist that she display a bit of detachment
“ and real misery is to be implicated in searching for sex pleasure ”
'Implicated' ??? So it's not the searching, it's if someone implicates you??? In any case no. Sexual pleasure is as much a part of God as anything else.

lol – I thought this one would draw a few raised eyebrows
Its quite simple really – the moment you begin on the path of sex pleasure is the moment you are faced with the impossible task of making your body perfect (at least advertisers know that sex sells), what to speak of the big mental, financial and physical sacrifice of household life which takes up a large portion of our lives

“ A wretched person is one who cannot control his senses ”
A wretched person is one who sees controlling parts of him or herself as a good goal.
so what does that make a serial rapist?

One who aspires to dominate themselves like dictators dominate other people.
actually its commonly seen that those who go about trying to dominate others are the one’s who are least in control of themselves

One who does on the inside the very things they often dislike most about what other people do on the outside.
I’ve read this eight times and I can’t make sense of it
“ one who is not attached to sense gratification is a real controller ”
Being a 'controller' is not necessarily a positive thing.
being in control, particularly in regard to the self (which is what’s referenced) is a sane thing – people often get in to all sorts of emotional, legal and financial difficulties because they are unable to control themselves

And it would be good for most guys (and gals, but more the guys) to know that if someone calls you a controller they are probably not feeling great about it. And for good reason. Often those who control themselves judge others for not controlling themselves.
there are all types of etiquette for how and when judgment should be offered – but in short if an uncontrolled person is in the habit of affecting things with their uncontrolled habits, a judgment is usually warranted

This superiority can be isolating. But it's certainly a choice.
certainly explains why rapists (ie people who are uncontrolled) are put into isolation (ie jail)
“ to constantly see good and bad is itself a bad quality ”
You have referred to 'wrong' paths, to being disgusted as a positive thing, and clearly see desire for sex as bad. You may use other words, but your assertions (or these assertions if they are not yours) are setting up a rather strict set of 'good and bad'. It is just another set of good and bad. And not a very honest one.
the issue is that transcendence is ultimately not arrived at through discerning the dualities of the material world – so at a certain point one must abandon duality

“ The best quality is to transcend material good and evil ”
I doubt it, but it is so abstract I am not sure it means anything.

“ Originally Posted by Oli
Being dead means you are beyond good and evil.
So by LG's logic being dead is something to aspire to. ”
There is a great deal of distaste for life and a yearning to be more deathlike in this kind of philosophy. You've hit the nail on the head. They cannot see how this is a philosophy of self-hatred. Desire, emotions, reacting negatively, sexual desire are all seen as bad. Anti-life and it's really sad how many have gone down this road.

actually its about how to NOT make life distasteful – how many people commit suicide because of getting chewed up by desire, emotions and sex?

– if you blindly accept that these things are “all good” or any which way you go about them is as good as any other, you are setting yourself up for some rather harsh and unnecessary experiences in life

seriously - I would have thought these would have struck something even amongst our predominantly atheistic community here

Real modesty is to be disgusted with improper activities

one who is enriched with good qualities is actually said to be rich

and one who is unsatisfied in life is actually poor

I don't know what to say. Maybe its too subjective / too little value to register on the atheist radar?

“ Grantywanty



[QUOTE]In other words doesn’t the notion of service imply that you simply do what is required and suspend one’s personal likes/dislikes?

Why base a religious practice on a classist relationship - servant to master? Why take something that is not right in society and build a model of spiritual goodness from it? What God needs servants?



“
hrih (modesty) is sometimes translated as shyness – in other words the ability to feel not only embarrassment about improper activities but disgust is what is real modesty (If you were totally disgusted by the notion of beating an infant, you wouldn’t do it and you wouldn’t stand to see others do it)
“

So if I don't beat children I am shy? Of course being disgusted or hating horrible actions is good. I 1) don't see what this has to do with modesty (or shyness) 2) made this very clear by giving examples like the one you gave. Most people assume modesty has to do with either sex, revealing clothing or downplaying one's strong points and abilities. I don't think this idea is clearly presented. I suspect I disagree with it, but I am quite sure it is not clear.

if your mother beat you up and swore at you constantly would you describe her as beautiful?

you missed the point. The issue was attachment. You judge attachment as bad. My mother is attached to me and she is good. And her attachment is good. Your scenario where she beats me has nothing to do with the issue.

In other words real beauty is perceived as the possession of good qualities
(as for attachment, that is the prime cause of bad qualities – for instance if your mother was so attached to you that she forbade you to leave the house and locked you in the room (even though you are 33), you would probably insist that she display a bit of detachment
Well, you just came up with a bad version of attachment, but there are good ones. I am attached to my girlfriend. I am attached to nature. I am attached to my friends. My mother is attached to me and yet she is not like the mother in your story.



lol – I thought this one would draw a few raised eyebrows
Its quite simple really – the moment you begin on the path of sex pleasure is the moment you are faced with the impossible task of making your body perfect (at least advertisers know that sex sells), what to speak of the big mental, financial and physical sacrifice of household life which takes up a large portion of our lives

1) if this is what you meant the sentence was not clear at all. 2) I think you are projecting ideas onto sexual desire and what it seems to YOU it HAS to entail. There is nothing wrong with sexual desire, it is as holy as as the holiest 'things' and there is nothing wrong with seeking sexual satisfaction.

“
so what does that make a serial rapist?

Is that what you are afraid you would become if you stopped controlling yourself? If so 1) consider that others are not like you 2) because you have controlled sex for so long it feels explosive and that's why it seems like to accept sex as a good thing will lead to violence. This is not true. One can, even one so backed up as that, slowly over time allow the impulses to come into acceptance. Obviously being a serial rapist is horrible. But to be one you have to suppress other emotions such as empathy, fear and the desire to be close to others and find love. I feel sorry for people who think their own desires are so dangerous and then find examples from 'out there' that 'prove' to them they must keep a lid on it. You are certainly wrong about people in general.


actually its commonly seen that those who go about trying to dominate others are the one’s who are least in control of themselves
This is absolutely wrong. They control their fear, deny it and shove it down in their unconscious. (take Bush for example). They control the impact of other's anger and feelings of violation.


I’ve read this eight times and I can’t make sense of it

Often people who 'get it' that being a dictator is a bad thing do not get how they mirror dicatators by treating themselves and especially their emotions and desires with the same hate the outer dictator exhibits in relation to others.

being in control, particularly in regard to the self (which is what’s referenced) is a sane thing – people often get in to all sorts of emotional, legal and financial difficulties because they are unable to control themselves

Sure, and people often get into problems because they control themselves. The thing is you can be free and not set up systems of self-control and not have problems. Many people are terrible drivers. I drive just fine.


there are all types of etiquette for how and when judgment should be offered – but in short if an uncontrolled person is in the habit of affecting things with their uncontrolled habits, a judgment is usually warranted

We all affect things. The expression of strong emotion, the expression of sexual desire, these can be beautiful things, but you would make rules and then come up with negative examples to prove THAT THEY ARE ALWAYS BAD. You have made general rules about control for everyone, all the time.


certainly explains why rapists (ie people who are uncontrolled) are put into isolation (ie jail)

Again you see rapists as the only possible result of not controlling sex. This says a lot about how long you have judged sexual energy as bad, but very little about what is possible. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

the issue is that transcendence is ultimately not arrived at through discerning the dualities of the material world – so at a certain point one must abandon duality

I see your sentences as riddled by duality. telling us what is bad, disgusting, dangerous - all the rapists who will appear if sex is accepted. You are splitting the world and the self up into two categories at least as much as all those people you think are lost in maya.



actually its about how to NOT make life distasteful – how many people commit suicide because of getting chewed up by desire, emotions and sex?

Again, you see negative examples to reinforce judgements you made long ago. You have lost faith in yourself, all of yoruself. It is a sad thing by itself, but it is horrible that you wish to teach everyone that they should see themselves as potential suicides and rapists if they accept their emotions and sexual desire. From experience myself, I can tell you directly, you are wrong about what is possible.

– if you blindly accept that these things are “all good” or any which way you go about them is as good as any other, you are setting yourself up for some rather harsh and unnecessary experiences in life The feelings are all good. Certainly some people choose bad ways to express certain emotions and desires. But that proves nothing. Some people drown. My desire to swim is beautiful. My swimming is beautiful. You see an ugly self that must be crushed. Again, this is a sad thing. you see a world full of bad examples. You only see a part and make it a rule.

Here what I see happening between us:

You make a general rule that all seeking after sexual desire is bad.
I say this general rule is not true.
You think I then need to defend specific examples of a certain very small % of the populations expression of this seeking.
But you see it is you who want to make a general rule.

Belief in God, for example, has some rather horrible examples out there. Will you give up your belief or service to God because of the acts of really quite a large number of 'servants of God'?

I do not have to say that all sexual acts are loving. I do know, absolutely, that many sexual acts are, as is the desire that led to them, sometimes really quite out of control. I am speaking from direct personal experience. I have also seen how control can evolve into a loss of control over time in my life and other lives, both in relation to emotions and sexual desire and I have seen how wonderful this has been for some people - who are now really quite 'out of control'. That's why I know your general rules are wrong and your assumptions about everyone becoming a dominator or a rapist are wrong and come from limited experience. I once bought some of that religious shit also. If you are certain you would become a rapist if you fully accepted your sexual feelings, well, by all means, control yourself. I can't be sure about you. But I can be sure that you general rules do not fit everyone and should not be applied by everyone, since many of us can be loving and out of control, even when it comes to expressing the full range of emotions and desires.

Your idea flits in the air like an ephemeral ghost and does not touch my life (anymore) but such ideas have done untold damage to people through many, many lifetimes. It's time for these judgements to end.

(rapists by the way are very self controlled. Rather than expressing anger, they act it out. They strictly control their fear and feelings of rejection. They avoid feelings of their own unworthiness and blame women for the tense internal ecology they have to maintain not to feel their own fears there. These are very rigid individuals. Not people who can express a wide range of emotions in front of loved ones or strangers. they are precisely the opposite of people who have worked to undo the training we have all gotten in controlling our emotions and desires. Often what separates them from other people who are very rigid is that they suffered physical, sexual or extreme emotional abuse themselves.)

They are the boogymen in the theories you use to scare yourself into being a 'good' boy. Boogeymen exist, sure, but there are other possibilities. A philosophy that assumes otherwise is based on unfelt fear.

therefore amongst two equivalently wealthy people, the greater would be the one who wouldn’t commit suicide if they lost it all (to be renounced from something doesn’t mean that one abhors something – it means that one can continue undisturbed either in its presence or absence)
Meh, wrong dictionary:
Renounce \Re*nounce"\ (r[-e]*nouns"), v. t. [imp. & p. p.
Renounced (-nounst"); p. pr. & vb. n. Renouncing
(-noun"s?ng).] [F. renoncer, L. renuntiare to bring back
word, announce, revoke, retract, renounce; pref. re- re- +
nuntiare to announce, fr. nuncius, a messenger. See Nuncio,
and cf. Renunciation.]
1. To declare against; to reject or decline formally; to
refuse to own or acknowledge as belonging to one; to
disclaim; as, to renounce a title to land or to a throne.

2. To cast off or reject deliberately; to disown; to dismiss;
to forswear.
If one has renounced wealth by definition you cannot have wealth.

There’s probably enough threads on the religion forum that discuss this
And still no definitive answer.

You don’t have a conception of what is proper?
Sure: does it match yours?

real beauty lies in character
Detachment is part of character that shows beauty?
Or just disdain?

there are several types of happiness, but in short they boil down to two varieties
one type involves further suffering down the track
another type remains free from such suffering
Theoretically.

I take it you are a bachelor
Divorced, and the point?

identifying with the body (which is temporary and subject to various diseases) and the mind (which is constantly assailed by miseries for every pleasure conceived in the form of unlimited dualities, eg pleasure/pain, hot/cold etc) brings happiness?
If I am not my body and mind what and where am I?

taking what one requires to live is perfectly sound (and even recommended) – taking more than what one requires, which is the frequent expedition of sense gratification, certainly destroys the physical nature of ourselves
And of course, it's impossible to gratify the senses with just what one requires to live?
Nonsense.

refers to sattva-guna – in short, the state of being that enables one to see things as they actually are (ie free from selfishness, lethargy, envy, lust etc and all the other elements that frequently interfere with our perception)
Ah, speculation.

if they can, ignorance won’t predominate I guess
QED.

there are more predominately ignorant states of ignorance than merely being 3 or 4 years old
Granted, but it doesn't answer the question.
Are children in hell?

make of it what you will ....
I do.
God is absent as far as I can see.

because that’s the easiest way to lose the human form of life and enter into the animal species
Speculation.

yes, that’s the common understanding .... never mind how neurotic they are
I've only ever known one really rich guy (beside myself).
Both of us were totally carefree.

depends whether the point of “wealth” is for deriving satisfaction or not
Nope, depends on satisfaction.

you know – tongue, stomach, etc
Last I heard tongue and stomach weren't senses.

if you can’t control yourself (meaning your senses) whatever position of power one may hold is a farce
Really? How so, seriously.

all around in the realm of duality (ie material world) yes
Assuming there is any other world.

no, because if one remains in ignorance one will continue to see duality, regardless whether one keeps their eyes open or closed
Duality exists - you're stuck with it.
Seeing it means you're seeing what's there - it doesn't make you a bad person.

assuming that after death transcendence is automatic
Nope: assuming you're DEAD.
Once dead you're beyond good and evil.

actual education is nullifying the false perception of duality within the soul

The word actual is based on the dualism actual or real vs. unreal. So even in this one sentence we have a contradiction. Let's see how much dualistic thinking is in the other sentences.


Real modesty is to be disgusted with improper activities

'Real' and 'improper' are words that suggest or create dualities.

and beauty is to possess good qualities such as detachment

'good' = duality and the sentence of course implies that attachement is bad. More duality.

Real happiness is to transcend material happiness and unhappiness

'transcend' is a word used in dualism where transcendence is couterposed to manifestation or materiality or immanene. 'Material' is used in dualities counterposed to 'spiritual' or 'holy'

and real misery is to be implicated in searching for sex pleasure
'real' again.

A wise man is one who knows the process of freedom from bondage
and a fool is one who identifies with his material body and mind

a sentence laying out a dualism. Two types of humans. Also a dualism between the spiritual and body and mind.


The real path in life is that which leads to God

and the wrong path is sense gratification, by which consciousness is bewildered

Dualism based on a transcendant God and the senses. God is clearly not immanent here and another dualism is formed.

Actual heaven is the predominance of the mode of goodness
whereas hell is the predominance of ignorance


one who is enriched with good qualities is actually said to be rich
and one who is unsatisfied in life is actually poor

Yet another dualism. Also an implied dualism. Disatisfaction is bad. Satisfaction is good. Anyone disatisfied with, for example, something like slavery and fights against it is spiritually poor. They should be satisfied with their or others' lack of freedom.

A wretched person is one who cannot control his senses

Control good, lack of control bad. More dualism. Senses bad. Another dualism though I am not sure which other term goes with it.


to constantly see good and bad is itself a bad quality

Practice as you say but not as you do. You would never know that you understand this belief yourself.
The best quality is to transcend material good and evil

The best quality - separates this quality out from others. Duality. Transcend, as always a duality word contrasted with immanence. Material contrasted with spiritual. Dualisms Dualisms Dualisms

You have to wonder why God made a world he wanted us to view as bad. You have to wonder why God made senses he thinks are bad. You have to wonder why God created a dualism, a world he is not manifest in. And then there is the ultimate dualism: God is not here, is not involved in sex, God is not emotions. God is separate, transcendant, out there.

And then there are those who think if you love earthly things: a woman, the forest, the smell of the air off the ocean, orgasms you are not loving God.

What a horrible dualistic philosophy you have presented. The odd twist is it claims to transcend dualisms which banging dualism into our heads.

“ Grantywanty


“ In other words doesn’t the notion of service imply that you simply do what is required and suspend one’s personal likes/dislikes? ”
Why base a religious practice on a classist relationship - servant to master? Why take something that is not right in society and build a model of spiritual goodness from it? What God needs servants?
The only thing wrong with our society is that we humbly serve those who don’t deserve it – therefore it is common knowledge that no one in this world fully surrenders to anyone else, and that no one is suitably qualified to accept such full surrender anyway – taking this material concept with us when we approach god makes spiritual life more troublesome than what it need be



“
hrih (modesty) is sometimes translated as shyness – in other words the ability to feel not only embarrassment about improper activities but disgust is what is real modesty (If you were totally disgusted by the notion of beating an infant, you wouldn’t do it and you wouldn’t stand to see others do it)
“

So if I don't beat children I am shy?
There could be many reasons you don’t beat your children (they might be able to break your teeth for example)
What I am saying is that the display of disgust at improper activities is the perfection of modesty (in other words, shying away from what is improper)

Of course being disgusted or hating horrible actions is good. I 1) don't see what this has to do with modesty (or shyness) 2) made this very clear by giving examples like the one you gave
Which example was that?
Most people assume modesty has to do with either sex, revealing clothing or downplaying one's strong points and abilities. I don't think this idea is clearly presented. I suspect I disagree with it, but I am quite sure it is not clear.
I am not sure what you are aiming at here
“ if your mother beat you up and swore at you constantly would you describe her as beautiful? ”
you missed the point. The issue was attachment.
the issue was “good qualities, such as detachment”
You judge attachment as bad. My mother is attached to me and she is good. And her attachment is good. Your scenario where she beats me has nothing to do with the issue.

No doubt because her attachment to you also has an element of detachment – that’s why I gave the eg of being locked in your room (the whole beating you up thing was suppose to indicate the foundation that beauty lies in good qualities)

“ [/QUOTE]In other words real beauty is perceived as the possession of good qualities
(as for attachment, that is the prime cause of bad qualities – for instance if your mother was so attached to you that she forbade you to leave the house and locked you in the room (even though you are 33), you would probably insist that she display a bit of detachment ”
Well, you just came up with a bad version of attachment, but there are good ones. I am attached to my girlfriend.
Are you so attached that you would commit suicide if she dumped you?
Anyway the general thing about “detachment” in case you haven’t caught it by now is that we live in a temporal world which we have the habit of getting attached to – cultivating attachment to temporary things of this world is a recipe for equivalent suffering.


“ [QUOTE] lol – I thought this one would draw a few raised eyebrows
Its quite simple really – the moment you begin on the path of sex pleasure is the moment you are faced with the impossible task of making your body perfect (at least advertisers know that sex sells), what to speak of the big mental, financial and physical sacrifice of household life which takes up a large portion of our lives ”
1) if this is what you meant the sentence was not clear at all. 2) I think you are projecting ideas onto sexual desire and what it seems to YOU it HAS to entail.
I though the examples were readily confirmed by the world we live in – sure, lots of people’s ideas towards sex change as they mature, but still you see it takes the general path as outlined (ie it results in two possibilities – one is a type of person who laments about the burden sex life has created for them – the other is a type of person who laments about the burden a lack of sex life has created for them) – take it or leave it, the result is identical ......

There is nothing wrong with sexual desire, it is as holy as as the holiest 'things' and there is nothing wrong with seeking sexual satisfaction.
You can judge a tree by the fruit it bears – similarly you can judge an act by the result

“
“ so what does that make a serial rapist? ”
Is that what you are afraid you would become if you stopped controlling yourself?
If a person applies this
A wretched person is one who sees controlling parts of him or herself as a good goal.

Its certainly the logical conclusion of “bettering oneself”
If so 1) consider that others are not like you
Actually I am not like that – and most other people are not either – I am even quite sure you aren’t either – the main reason is because people can commonly perceive the value of controlling themselves

2) because you have controlled sex for so long it feels explosive and that's why it seems like to accept sex as a good thing will lead to violence.
Okay how about we take an example closer to home – if your girlfriend wants to have sex with the next door neighbor do you encourage her ?

This is not true. One can, even one so backed up as that, slowly over time allow the impulses to come into acceptance. Obviously being a serial rapist is horrible. But to be one you have to suppress other emotions such as empathy, fear and the desire to be close to others and find love.

So in other words there is no possibility of empathizing or being close to another person unless you have sex with them?

I feel sorry for people who think their own desires are so dangerous and then find examples from 'out there' that 'prove' to them they must keep a lid on it. You are certainly wrong about people in general.
You miss the point – with or without sex, one is still required to act in a controlled manner – just try acting in an “uncontrolled” manner with someone other than your girlfriend and see how long she “empathizes” with you

“ actually its commonly seen that those who go about trying to dominate others are the one’s who are least in control of themselves ”
This is absolutely wrong. They control their fear, deny it and shove it down in their unconscious. (take Bush for example). They control the impact of other's anger and feelings of violation.
Its not clear how this is an example of a person who has controlled their senses

“ I’ve read this eight times and I can’t make sense of it ”
Often people who 'get it' that being a dictator is a bad thing do not get how they mirror dicatators by treating themselves and especially their emotions and desires with the same hate the outer dictator exhibits in relation to others.
So how do you embrace lust, anger, wrath, envy, avarice etc and what is the consequence in relation to your dealings with others?
“ being in control, particularly in regard to the self (which is what’s referenced) is a sane thing – people often get in to all sorts of emotional, legal and financial difficulties because they are unable to control themselves ”
Sure, and people often get into problems because they control themselves.
The thing is you can be free and not set up systems of self-control and not have problems. Many people are terrible drivers. I drive just fine.
????
You don’t have a system of control when you drive?

“ there are all types of etiquette for how and when judgment should be offered – but in short if an uncontrolled person is in the habit of affecting things with their uncontrolled habits, a judgment is usually warranted ”
We all affect things.
I should have mentioned the word “adversely”

The expression of strong emotion, the expression of sexual desire, these can be beautiful things, but you would make rules and then come up with negative examples to prove THAT THEY ARE ALWAYS BAD.
Try doing these things in an uncontrolled manner and see what “beauty” you invite in your life

You have made general rules about control for everyone, all the time.
The general rule is that self control is a good quality and the foundation of sanity

“ certainly explains why rapists (ie people who are uncontrolled) are put into isolation (ie jail) ”
Again you see rapists as the only possible result of not controlling sex.
Engineering other examples is difficult?

This says a lot about how long you have judged sexual energy as bad, but very little about what is possible. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
A quick and easy way to get “isolated” from your girlfriend is to pursue the ideal that “self control makes one wretched”
“ the issue is that transcendence is ultimately not arrived at through discerning the dualities of the material world – so at a certain point one must abandon duality ”
I see your sentences as riddled by duality. telling us what is bad, disgusting, dangerous - all the rapists who will appear if sex is accepted. You are splitting the world and the self up into two categories at least as much as all those people you think are lost in maya.
In case you missed vital one’s post, this entire thread is taken from the Srimad Bhagavatam ....
Anyway the purport is that recognizing what is actually good and what is bad in this world is the prerequisite for coming to the platform of transcendence – in other words there are numerous dualities in this world, but the ultimate duality is that of krsna/maya or truth/illusion


“ actually its about how to NOT make life distasteful – how many people commit suicide because of getting chewed up by desire, emotions and sex? ”
Again, you see negative examples to reinforce judgements you made long ago. You have lost faith in yourself, all of yoruself.
Abandoning self control is to lose faith in oneself

It is a sad thing by itself, but it is horrible that you wish to teach everyone that they should see themselves as potential suicides and rapists if they accept their emotions and sexual desire.
They were more extreme examples to illustrate problems with your ideals – the most common consequence of being unable to control oneself in this world is divorce or the dissolution of relationships

From experience myself, I can tell you directly, you are wrong about what is possible.
..... time will tell
“ – if you blindly accept that these things are “all good” or any which way you go about them is as good as any other, you are setting yourself up for some rather harsh and unnecessary experiences in life ”
The feelings are all good. Certainly some people choose bad ways to express certain emotions and desires. But that proves nothing. Some people drown. My desire to swim is beautiful. My swimming is beautiful. You see an ugly self that must be crushed. Again, this is a sad thing. you see a world full of bad examples. You only see a part and make it a rule.
Even swimming has standards (eg – you are required to keep your head out of water on occasion so you can continue breathing)


Here what I see happening between us:

You make a general rule that all seeking after sexual desire is bad.
I say this general rule is not true.
You think I then need to defend specific examples of a certain very small % of the populations expression of this seeking.
But you see it is you who want to make a general rule.

Belief in God, for example, has some rather horrible examples out there. Will you give up your belief or service to God because of the acts of really quite a large number of 'servants of God'?

I do not have to say that all sexual acts are loving. I do know, absolutely, that many sexual acts are, as is the desire that led to them, sometimes really quite out of control. I am speaking from direct personal experience. I have also seen how control can evolve into a loss of control over time in my life and other lives, both in relation to emotions and sexual desire and I have seen how wonderful this has been for some people - who are now really quite 'out of control'. That's why I know your general rules are wrong and your assumptions about everyone becoming a dominator or a rapist are wrong and come from limited experience. I once bought some of that religious shit also. If you are certain you would become a rapist if you fully accepted your sexual feelings, well, by all means, control yourself. I can't be sure about you. But I can be sure that you general rules do not fit everyone and should not be applied by everyone, since many of us can be loving and out of control, even when it comes to expressing the full range of emotions and desires.

Your idea flits in the air like an ephemeral ghost and does not touch my life (anymore) but such ideas have done untold damage to people through many, many lifetimes. It's time for these judgements to end.

(rapists by the way are very self controlled. Rather than expressing anger, they act it out. They strictly control their fear and feelings of rejection. They avoid feelings of their own unworthiness and blame women for the tense internal ecology they have to maintain not to feel their own fears there. These are very rigid individuals. Not people who can express a wide range of emotions in front of loved ones or strangers. they are precisely the opposite of people who have worked to undo the training we have all gotten in controlling our emotions and desires. Often what separates them from other people who are very rigid is that they suffered physical, sexual or extreme emotional abuse themselves.)

They are the boogymen in the theories you use to scare yourself into being a 'good' boy. Boogeymen exist, sure, but there are other possibilities. A philosophy that assumes otherwise is based on unfelt fear.

Basically my point is this – if you want to engage in sex (as an addition to a loving relationship), you have to consider these two things
1) your ability to control yourself (otherwise your partner will consider you a jerk and dissolve the relationship)
2) your reserves of mental and financial resources will play a part in determining the degree to which the relationship is a bed of roses (given the predictable course of household life) .... and we all know how ecstatic it is to secure such resources ...


actual education is nullifying the false perception of duality within the soul ”
The word actual is based on the dualism actual or real vs. unreal. So even in this one sentence we have a contradiction. Let's see how much dualistic thinking is in the other sentences.
looks like you have just hit on the ultimate duality of reality I guess

“ Real modesty is to be disgusted with improper activities ”
'Real' and 'improper' are words that suggest or create dualities.
hence its proper to be disgusted by illusion
“ and beauty is to possess good qualities such as detachment ”
'good' = duality and the sentence of course implies that attachement is bad. More duality.
hence it is recommended to be detached from illusion
“ Real happiness is to transcend material happiness and unhappiness ”
'transcend' is a word used in dualism where transcendence is couterposed to manifestation or materiality or immanene. 'Material' is used in dualities counterposed to 'spiritual' or 'holy'
how does this illustrate problems with what was offered?

and real misery is to be implicated in searching for sex pleasure
'real' again.
are the bodies we inhabit and the relationships we forge in this world eternal?
“ A wise man is one who knows the process of freedom from bondage
and a fool is one who identifies with his material body and mind ”
a sentence laying out a dualism. Two types of humans. Also a dualism between the spiritual and body and mind.
yes there are two things running here – one is the person who knows how to get free from duality and the other doesn’t

“ “ The real path in life is that which leads to God ”
and the wrong path is sense gratification, by which consciousness is bewildered ”
Dualism based on a transcendant God and the senses. God is clearly not immanent here and another dualism is formed.
God is immanent – when we pursue sense gratification however, god disappears from merely our perception
“ Actual heaven is the predominance of the mode of goodness
whereas hell is the predominance of ignorance
Light and darkness – form and shadow - reality and illusion – etc etc ”

“ one who is enriched with good qualities is actually said to be rich
and one who is unsatisfied in life is actually poor ”
Yet another dualism. Also an implied dualism. Disatisfaction is bad. Satisfaction is good. Anyone disatisfied with, for example, something like slavery and fights against it is spiritually poor. They should be satisfied with their or others' lack of freedom.
it’s not clear how the presence or absence of slavery makes one satisfied (in other words even a slave master is dissatisfied)
“ A wretched person is one who cannot control his senses ”
Control good, lack of control bad. More dualism. Senses bad. Another dualism though I am not sure which other term goes with it.
the uncontrolled senses are bad – mainly because they lead to ignorance etc

“ to constantly see good and bad is itself a bad quality ”
Practice as you say but not as you do. You would never know that you understand this belief yourself.
I think we have already addressed this

“ The best quality is to transcend material good and evil ”
The best quality - separates this quality out from others.
yes

Duality. Transcend, as always a duality word contrasted with immanence. Material contrasted with spiritual. Dualisms Dualisms Dualisms
unless one can recognize the value in controlling oneself, its difficult to understand how one will have a satisfactory material life ... what to speak of rising above the duality of this world


You have to wonder why God made a world he wanted us to view as bad.
perhaps to encourage us to rise above duality (after all, if you think this is the best of all possible worlds, there seems little impetus for transcendence)

You have to wonder why God made senses he thinks are bad.
senses only become a problem when they are out of control
otherwise they remain one’s greatest ally

BG6.6 For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends; but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest enemy.

You have to wonder why God created a dualism, a world he is not manifest in.
god is always manifest – its just our remembrance of him that is faulty

And then there is the ultimate dualism: God is not here, is not involved in sex, God is not emotions. God is separate, transcendant, out there.
the only place god is not is in the mind of a person surrendered to acts of ignorance – as for sex, emotions etc, all that was advocated was that they have the potential be troublesome .... and the easiest way to arrive at such a location is to act in an uncontrolled manner

And then there are those who think if you love earthly things: a woman, the forest, the smell of the air off the ocean, orgasms you are not loving God.
so all persons who have loved women, forests, oceans or orgasms were highly god realized?
to put it quite frankly, god has a lot more to offer than a cherry for your ice cream ...

What a horrible dualistic philosophy you have presented. The odd twist is it claims to transcend dualisms which banging dualism into our heads.
the hope of transcending duality begins by not catching the bad end of life’s stick in every instance

“ Oli

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
therefore amongst two equivalently wealthy people, the greater would be the one who wouldn’t commit suicide if they lost it all (to be renounced from something doesn’t mean that one abhors something – it means that one can continue undisturbed either in its presence or absence) ”
Meh, wrong dictionary:
“ Renounce \Re*nounce"\ (r[-e]*nouns"), v. t. [imp. & p. p.
Renounced (-nounst"); p. pr. & vb. n. Renouncing
(-noun"s?ng).] [F. renoncer, L. renuntiare to bring back
word, announce, revoke, retract, renounce; pref. re- re- +
nuntiare to announce, fr. nuncius, a messenger. See Nuncio,
and cf. Renunciation.]
1. To declare against; to reject or decline formally; to
refuse to own or acknowledge as belonging to one; to
disclaim; as, to renounce a title to land or to a throne.

2. To cast off or reject deliberately; to disown; to dismiss;
to forswear. ”
If one has renounced wealth by definition you cannot have wealth.
“to refuse as acknowledge as belonging to one” works ok
(notice how “abhor” doesn’t rock up in the synonymns)
if there wasn’t this capacity, there would be no scope for detachment (How is it possible to be detached from something you acknowledge as belonging to one’s self - in otherwords if we have the capacity to lose something, it indicates that it never was truly "ours")
“ There’s probably enough threads on the religion forum that discuss this ”
And still no definitive answer.
depends who’s asking
“ You don’t have a conception of what is proper? ”
Sure: does it match yours?
if you are not in jail, to a greater extent, yes
“ real beauty lies in character ”
Detachment is part of character that shows beauty?
Or just disdain?
detachment is a good quality, hence the words “such as”
“ there are several types of happiness, but in short they boil down to two varieties
one type involves further suffering down the track
another type remains free from such suffering ”
Theoretically.
successful theory finds its way into practice ....
“ I take it you are a bachelor ”
Divorced, and the point?
how many more times do you plan on getting divorced?
“ identifying with the body (which is temporary and subject to various diseases) and the mind (which is constantly assailed by miseries for every pleasure conceived in the form of unlimited dualities, eg pleasure/pain, hot/cold etc) brings happiness? ”
If I am not my body and mind what and where am I?
consciousness that has no ultimate relationship with trying to cultivate happiness by hanging on to temporary things (except under the weight of illusion)
“ taking what one requires to live is perfectly sound (and even recommended) – taking more than what one requires, which is the frequent expedition of sense gratification, certainly destroys the physical nature of ourselves ”
And of course, it's impossible to gratify the senses with just what one requires to live?
Nonsense.
unless you eat more than you require you will die?
“ refers to sattva-guna – in short, the state of being that enables one to see things as they actually are (ie free from selfishness, lethargy, envy, lust etc and all the other elements that frequently interfere with our perception) ”
Ah, speculation.
selfishness, lethargy, envy, lust etc enable you to get a clearer picture of the world you live in?
“ if they can, ignorance won’t predominate I guess ”
QED.
“ there are more predominately ignorant states of ignorance than merely being 3 or 4 years old ”
Granted, but it doesn't answer the question.
Are children in hell?
depends who you are comparing them to
“ make of it what you will .... ”
I do.
God is absent as far as I can see.
such is the power of your seeing ....
“ because that’s the easiest way to lose the human form of life and enter into the animal species ”
Speculation.
make of it what you will
“ yes, that’s the common understanding .... never mind how neurotic they are ”
I've only ever known one really rich guy (beside myself).
Both of us were totally carefree.
before or after your divorce?
“ depends whether the point of “wealth” is for deriving satisfaction or not ”
Nope, depends on satisfaction.
hence those without it are poor
“ you know – tongue, stomach, etc ”
Last I heard tongue and stomach weren't senses.
do you eat a pizza by placing it on your eyebrows?
“ if you can’t control yourself (meaning your senses) whatever position of power one may hold is a farce ”
Really? How so, seriously.
if a person in power is controlled by another higher controller they are not in control – similarly if a business manager is controlled by envy, etc, it is envy that ultimately controls the business
“ all around in the realm of duality (ie material world) yes ”
Assuming there is any other world.
I take it you assume there isn’t
“ no, because if one remains in ignorance one will continue to see duality, regardless whether one keeps their eyes open or closed ”
Duality exists - you're stuck with it.
if all you see is this world, most definitely

Seeing it means you're seeing what's there - it doesn't make you a bad person.
hence this issue raises the question of “what’s there”
“ assuming that after death transcendence is automatic ”
Nope: assuming you're DEAD.
Once dead you're beyond good and evil.
assuming life finishes with the body

"to refuse as acknowledge as belonging to one" works ok
So if they don't acknowledge it as theirs they don't do anything with it? At all?

depends who’s asking
Nearly everyone, but in this particular case: me.

if you are not in jail, to a greater extent, yes
Really?
Legal = proper?

detachment is a good quality
How so?

successful theory finds its way into practice ....
Very good, now expound upon the theory and say HOW it can be practised.
What is the basis for the other type of happiness.

how many more times do you plan on getting divorced?
None. I didn't plan the first one either.
Your point?
For both remarks - i.e. that you take it I'm a bachelor and how many more times I'm planning on divorce.

consciousness that has no ultimate relationship with trying to cultivate happiness by hanging on to temporary things (except under the weight of illusion)[quote]
Is that demonstrable?

[quote]unless you eat more than you require you will die?
Assuming the requirement of food is "the amount that keeps you alive" is it impossible to get gratification from that amount?
I'd say so.

selfishness, lethargy, envy, lust etc enable you to get a clearer picture of the world you live in?
Not what I was saying - the speculation is that there's a state that enables you to to see "things as they actually are".
Can you show that what we see now isn't as things are?

depends who you are comparing them to
No comparison required: your statement was that ignorance is hell.
Children are largely ignorant.

such is the power of your seeing ....
That's possible.

make of it what you will
Gracias.

before or after your divorce?
Relevance (to the divorce that is)?
After, if that means anything.
And the other guy I knew didn't get divorced, for what that's worth.

hence those without it are poor
I've been satisfied with and without wealth.

do you eat a pizza by placing it on your eyebrows?
Point?
Stomach etc are not the senses.

if a person in power is controlled by another higher controller they are not in control – similarly if a business manager is controlled by envy, etc, it is envy that ultimately controls the business
Since those characteristics are part of the make-up of humans (to one extent or another) losing them means becoming someone else effectively - how much control is there in losing oneself?

I take it you assume there isn’t
Assume? No.
Have no evidence or indicators of? Yes.

if all you see is this world, most definitely
I live in this world - it's the one I have knowledge of, evidence of and clues to.

hence this issue raises the question of “what’s there”
See above.

assuming life finishes with the body
Any indication it doesn't?

Oli

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
"to refuse as acknowledge as belonging to one" works ok
”
So if they don't acknowledge it as theirs they don't do anything with it? At all?
generally if a person (at least of principles) approaches something that is not theirs, they attempt to see that it is returned to the owner

“
depends who’s asking
”
Nearly everyone, but in this particular case: me.
depends on your qualification I guess, just like any other branch of knowledge you care to mention ...

“
if you are not in jail, to a greater extent, yes
”
Really?
Legal = proper?
its a good place to begin as a general indicator

“
detachment is a good quality
”
How so?
it enabled you to survive a divorce without committing suicide or killing your wife (.... actually you haven't clearly indicated that you aren't in jail, so maybe we should suspend that idea ....)

“
successful theory finds its way into practice ....
”
Very good, now expound upon the theory and say HOW it can be practised.
What is the basis for the other type of happiness.
happiness is in relation to an object - if all you are capable of discerning (due to your theoretical base no doubt) is that one type of object exists (this body and things related to this body is practically one category) you only have one type of happiness , which has the habit of wringing dry more quickly as time goes on

“
how many more times do you plan on getting divorced?
”
None. I didn't plan the first one either.
Your point?
For both remarks - i.e. that you take it I'm a bachelor and how many more times I'm planning on divorce.
relates to your earlier response
me - and real misery is to be implicated in searching for sex pleasure ”
you - Getting further off-track.

if you don't experience divorce as a miserable consequence of the pursuit of sex life, I can't see any reason for not planning for many more joyful divorces in the future ...

[quote]consciousness that has no ultimate relationship with trying to cultivate happiness by hanging on to temporary things (except under the weight of illusion)[quote]
Is that demonstrable?
yes
the first step is that you extract your deep rooted desire for happiness from things related to the body and the mind

“
unless you eat more than you require you will die?
”
Assuming the requirement of food is "the amount that keeps you alive" is it impossible to get gratification from that amount?
I'd say so.
I guess the solution lies in locating an object that is not related to the body or the mind to seek gratification (enjoyment is after all is the primary force of existence)

“
selfishness, lethargy, envy, lust etc enable you to get a clearer picture of the world you live in?
”
Not what I was saying - the speculation is that there's a state that enables you to to see "things as they actually are".
Can you show that what we see now isn't as things are?
you want me to provide examples or indications of how lust, etc shapes our vision?

“
depends who you are comparing them to
”
No comparison required: your statement was that ignorance is hell.
Children are largely ignorant.
hell is a relative term (relative to ignorance)


“
before or after your divorce?
”
Relevance (to the divorce that is)?
After, if that means anything.
And the other guy I knew didn't get divorced, for what that's worth.
given the nature of our ever increasingly complex world of legalities, "divorce" and "carefree" tend to be incompatible terms

anyway, the general categories that threaten our status as "carefree" are

1 - sufferings caused by our own body or mind (detachment can be a good quality to help deal with this)
2 - sufferings caused by other living entities, including ex-wives (once again, detachment helps)
3 - sufferings caused by natural phenomena, eg flood, fire, earthquake, etc (once again, detachment helps)

hence to be endowed with good qualities (such as detachment) is the best asset to have in one's possession, since even the richest person can not buy their way out of material suffering (in fact they have the tendency to be the target of further suffering – unless of course they have good qualities like detachment - , particularly at the hands of people with bad qualities like envy)

“
hence those without it are poor
”
I've been satisfied with and without wealth.
must be because you possess good qualities like detachment
:D

“
do you eat a pizza by placing it on your eyebrows?
”
Point?
Stomach etc are not the senses.
the stomach lets us know when it is time to take the pizza off our eyebrows and put it in our mouth (unless you are on an intravenous diet)

“
if a person in power is controlled by another higher controller they are not in control – similarly if a business manager is controlled by envy, etc, it is envy that ultimately controls the business
”
Since those characteristics are part of the make-up of humans (to one extent or another) losing them means becoming someone else effectively - how much control is there in losing oneself?
so if I took away all your envy, lust, etc you would cease to exist (or become a person that would be horribly different from who you are now)????

or would it allow the predominance of your good qualities, like detachment, to flourish ....???

“
I take it you assume there isn’t
”
Assume? No.
Have no evidence or indicators of? Yes.
what extent have you gone to investigate this?

“
if all you see is this world, most definitely
”
I live in this world - it's the one I have knowledge of, evidence of and clues to.
then if your life is plagued by discrepancies/uncertainties/reverses and the certain prospect of annihilation and complete non-existence, its a clear indication that your knowledge, evidence and clues are very very very meager

“
hence this issue raises the question of “what’s there”
”
See above.
so what's there?
If you say matter, what's matter, and what the hell are you doing in the middle of it?


“
assuming life finishes with the body
”
Any indication it doesn't?
one could begin by asking "am I this body"
If you say "yes", the next question would be "which body are you", since due to the constant movement of matter, the body you indicate by the words "this one I am in at the moment" has already come and gone.

In other words despite all this constant flux/change/dissolution/creation of bodily atoms we constantly say "This is me"

What are we indicating by the word "this"?

“



[QUOTE]The only thing wrong with our society is that we humbly serve those who don’t deserve it – therefore it is common knowledge that no one in this world fully surrenders to anyone else, and that no one is suitably qualified to accept such full surrender anyway – taking this material concept with us when we approach god makes spiritual life more troublesome than what it need be

So it's a wonder that you repeat the error of using metaphors from classist relationships and war. There are certainly better metaphors out there.


No doubt because her attachment to you also has an element of detachment – that’s why I gave the eg of being locked in your room (the whole beating you up thing was suppose to indicate the foundation that beauty lies in good qualities) 1) as usual talking about what you don't know 2) no, she is attached to my freedom and my fulfilling my potential and she would passionately defend that. You think she must control her attachment and that is sad and incorrect.


Are you so attached that you would commit suicide if she dumped you?
Anyway the general thing about “detachment” in case you haven’t caught it by now is that we live in a temporal world which we have the habit of getting attached to – cultivating attachment to temporary things of this world is a recipe for equivalent suffering.

1) you lack courage 2) I am attached to other things than my girlfriend and as deeply as it would grieve me I would go on. My love is larger and more encompassing.


“
I though the examples were readily confirmed by the world we live in – sure, lots of people’s ideas towards sex change as they mature, but still you see it takes the general path as outlined (ie it results in two possibilities – one is a type of person who laments about the burden sex life has created for them – the other is a type of person who laments about the burden a lack of sex life has created for them) – take it or leave it, the result is identical ......

You don't know what you are talking about. I assume you base your position on your own bad sexual experiences or lack of them and assume this is how it must be. I know many people who do not fit the dualism you have above.




Actually I am not like that – and most other people are not either – I am even quite sure you aren’t either – the main reason is because people can commonly perceive the value of controlling themselves

No, I have not eliminated all controls. It is a work in progress. But I have gone so far in the other direction from your control centered philosophy I know your fears and assumptions are incorrect.


Okay how about we take an example closer to home – if your girlfriend wants to have sex with the next door neighbor do you encourage her ?

You are making assumptions again from a place of being so backed up you see desires as threats and as nearly random.



So in other words there is no possibility of empathizing or being close to another person unless you have sex with them?

This is a fantasy interpretation of things I've said. And it is also a habit on your part. You think sex and love must be separate. I am saying this generalization is wrong. I would even go so far as to say it is evil.


You miss the point – with or without sex, one is still required to act in a controlled manner – just try acting in an “uncontrolled” manner with someone other than your girlfriend and see how long she “empathizes” with you

I know many people I can do this with. Not to speak of wild cultural differences along these lines. Sure some people I am not open with. My fear or caution assures some distance from them. Your assumption above that I must closet myself again shows your own judgements of what must be. Assumptions.


So how do you embrace lust, anger, wrath, envy, avarice etc and what is the consequence in relation to your dealings with others?

That answer cannot be a short one. Good to see a little crack in your doorway.
????
You don’t have a system of control when you drive? I am not split into the controller and the controllee. You are very confused about your relationship with your body. You assume the split and then think you must be like a captain in a ship. Another dualism, more assumptions.




Try doing these things in an uncontrolled manner and see what “beauty” you invite in your life

Since I stopped controlling my emotions and desires I have met the love of my life and we have been together for 8 years. I now work in a field that is vastly more creative and I have done things I never even dreamed of. I have much richer and closer relationships and I do not have to view parts of myself as enemies or disgusted or as things to be repressed and so I have much more passion and energy for life. You are wrong again in what you think must be.


The general rule is that self control is a good quality and the foundation of sanity

Your general rule.


A quick and easy way to get “isolated” from your girlfriend is to pursue the ideal that “self control makes one wretched”

Precisely incorrect. The more we have loosened control around each other the freer and happier we feel. The closer we are, literally since I am not one layer hiding others. You do not know what you are talking about.
“
In case you missed vital one’s post, this entire thread is taken from the Srimad Bhagavatam ....

written by humans who were doing their best but made some very faulty assumptions.


Abandoning self control is to lose faith in oneself
Just spend a minute looking at that sentence. Self control is a lack of faith and trust. Look at who we control as a society, those we do not trust. When they earn our trust we loosen the controls. Precisely because I trust myself I have loosened and in many ways eliminated controls. You do not trust yourself. You think if you really felt and expressed your desires you would rape. I know this is not true about myself. Who has real faith here?


They were more extreme examples to illustrate problems with your ideals – the most common consequence of being unable to control oneself in this world is divorce or the dissolution of relationships

As you have already said, most people control themselves. You don't know what was causal in this, the control or the lack of control.


Even swimming has standards (eg – you are required to keep your head out of water on occasion so you can continue breathing)

AGain this shows you are split from your body and think it needs orders and control. My body or really I know how to swim and I like breathing. Desire handles everything.




Basically my point is this – if you want to engage in sex (as an addition to a loving relationship), you have to consider these two things
1) your ability to control yourself (otherwise your partner will consider you a jerk and dissolve the relationship)
2) your reserves of mental and financial resources will play a part in determining the degree to which the relationship is a bed of roses (given the predictable course of household life) .... and we all know how ecstatic it is to secure such resources ...

You are not in a position either in terms of wisdom or our relationship to tell me what I have to do. And you should know that. 1 and 2 are just rehashings of your assumptions about what everyone must experience from your limited perspective.






yes there are two things running here – one is the person who knows how to get free from duality and the other doesn’t

As I have pointed out you are ENCOURAGING us to make dualities and reinforce the boundaries separating components. You distrust your body, emotions and desires. You are split and want others to be split.



“ “
God is immanent – when we pursue sense gratification however, god disappears from merely our perception

God is immanent and I love the God in orgasms, desire emotions and do not have your dualisms and will not be taught by you to hate parts of God or myself.
“
Light and darkness – form and shadow - reality and illusion – etc etc ”

“
it’s not clear how the presence or absence of slavery makes one satisfied (in other words even a slave master is dissatisfied)“


And so I assume you will always be disatisfied with your inner slave: your emotions and body. Since they will not always listen to the master in you. I certainly hate that relationship. Perhaps it does work for you. But let me assure you you are wrong about other people.





perhaps to encourage us to rise above duality (after all, if you think this is the best of all possible worlds, there seems little impetus for transcendence)

I have never said this is best of all possible worlds. You are making faulty assumptions. They seem logical to you because you are so mental you cannot feel well. I have strong desires about how the world needs to change.



BG6.6 For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends; but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest enemy.

Nice war metaphors. And yet you are one who will teach us about love.




so all persons who have loved women, forests, oceans or orgasms were highly god realized?
to put it quite frankly, god has a lot more to offer than a cherry for your ice cream ...

Nope. I never said that. Oddly enough I very clearly was talking about myself You want to make sex and sensory and earthly experience out as all bad things. I mention that these have been good things for me and you try to twist this into a general rule. Get it: I am telling you that your general rule is wrong. You also assume in your ice cream metaphor - a much better one than the war and service ones by the way - that again you are showing your dualism. You assume that I must ignore or be disgusted by the immanent God to love the transcendant one. In this you are wrong, whatever faith you have put in your holy books that makes you think I must be wrong. Your experience is limited.


Now I will leave you to this thread. I've made my points and my intuition says it will get repettitive from here. Continue teaching us to hate the immanent God. But note that at least one person here has seen through to that hateful core in your dualism.

It looks like your battle (a metaphor that should please you) will continue with someone coming from the secular perspective. I'd say Oli is doing rather well. I hope you have the courage to challenge you long held unchanged beliefs.

Grantywanty

pardon me for asking, but were you stoned when you posted that?

generally if a person (at least of principles) approaches something that is not theirs, they attempt to see that it is returned to the owner
So a wealthy person who renounces, would acknowledge the wealth isn't his and get rid: thereby becoming not wealthy...

depends on your qualification I guess, just like any other branch of knowledge you care to mention ...
Okay.

its a good place to begin as a general indicator
There are no unjust or immoral laws?
Anywhere?
Laws vary from country to country, time to time: so does "proper"?

it enabled you to survive a divorce without committing suicide or killing your wife (.... actually you haven't clearly indicated that you aren't in jail, so maybe we should suspend that idea ....)
And if I'd been detached I wouldn't have got married in the first place.
(PS, I'm not in jail - but you only have my word on that :D)

happiness is in relation to an object - if all you are capable of discerning (due to your theoretical base no doubt) is that one type of object exists (this body and things related to this body is practically one category) you only have one type of happiness , which has the habit of wringing dry more quickly as time goes on
I haven't come across anything other than this body to use as a basis.

relates to your earlier response
me - and real misery is to be implicated in searching for sex pleasure ”
you - Getting further off-track.
:confused:

if you don't experience divorce as a miserable consequence of the pursuit of sex life,
False assumption on your part. The divorce wasn't actually related to sex or the pursuit of it.

the first step is that you extract your deep rooted desire for happiness from things related to the body and the mind
There are things other than body and mind?

I guess the solution lies in locating an object that is not related to the body or the mind to seek gratification
See above.

(enjoyment is after all is the primary force of existence)
:eek:

you want me to provide examples or indications of how lust, etc shapes our vision?
Go ahead.

hell is a relative term (relative to ignorance)
And children are relatively ignorant.

given the nature of our ever increasingly complex world of legalities, "divorce" and "carefree" tend to be incompatible terms
Divorce was history by then: carefree-ness was nearly total.

anyway, the general categories that threaten our status as "carefree" are

1 - sufferings caused by our own body or mind (detachment can be a good quality to help deal with this)
2 - sufferings caused by other living entities, including ex-wives (once again, detachment helps)
3 - sufferings caused by natural phenomena, eg flood, fire, earthquake, etc (once again, detachment helps)

hence to be endowed with good qualities (such as detachment) is the best asset to have in one's possession, since even the richest person can not buy their way out of material suffering (in fact they have the tendency to be the target of further suffering – unless of course they have good qualities like detachment - , particularly at the hands of people with bad qualities like envy)
Um, detached from ex-wife - not detached from life.

must be because you possess good qualities like detachment
Yeah, I'm an arrogant care for no-one guy.

the stomach lets us know when it is time to take the pizza off our eyebrows and put it in our mouth (unless you are on an intravenous diet)
Da, okay. I know what you mean.

so if I took away all your envy, lust, etc you would cease to exist (or become a person that would be horribly different from who you are now)????
Since I wouldn't have those as part of my personal make-up any more then I wouldn't be me would I?

or would it allow the predominance of your good qualities, like detachment, to flourish ....???
Aren't people a mix of things - I like things - is that not a mild lust )or whatever) for those things?
If I lose my "bad qualities" then I won't like those things anymore - hence not me.

what extent have you gone to investigate this?
How would I investigate it?
My senses, mind and body are tailored to this world.

then if your life is plagued by discrepancies/uncertainties/reverses and the certain prospect of annihilation and complete non-existence, its a clear indication that your knowledge, evidence and clues are very very very meager
That's a possibility, what are the alternatives?

so what's there?
If you say matter, what's matter, and what the hell are you doing in the middle of it?
I'm in the middle of it because that's where birth and life put me.
As to what matter is, it's the stuff that's all round me, (without getting into physics).

one could begin by asking "am I this body"
If you say "yes", the next question would be "which body are you", since due to the constant movement of matter, the body you indicate by the words "this one I am in at the moment" has already come and gone.
The moment has come and gone, the body is mostly still here.

In other words despite all this constant flux/change/dissolution/creation of bodily atoms we constantly say "This is me"
Yup, that one puzzles me at times.
I am that which identifies itself as me?

I make these statements not in condescension, but in curiosity. I voted on the poll, but felt it necessary to clear up discretions in order to answer some of them.

Full opulence consists of full strength, intelligence, beauty, wealth, renunciation, and fame
In a way, yes. But any one can lead to the others depending on the person and situation. Strength can develop. Intelligence is simply knowing what to do in the situation to achieve a goal. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. wealth is undefined and can be many things. renunciation (presumably of sin) is like a rebirth. fame comes from achieving goals that affect many people.

The supreme gain in life is devotional service to God
This is why I dislike the usage of the word god in most cases: because it is undefined, especially in this case. The one agreed upon definition is "creator of the universe". How am I supposed to devote service to that which created the universe? Does this mean I am supposed to create instead of destroy? If so, then I agree.

actual education is nullifying the false perception of duality within the soul
If I understand you correctly, then I agree. The soul is not separate from the material world just as the spiritual world is not separate from the material. Understanding this allows one to correlate the two and be more at peace with oneself.

Real modesty is to be disgusted with improper activities
I don't agree with this one. I believe that real modesty includes modesty for everything around you as well as yourself. To be modest is almost like being naive, but in a grandmotherly kind of way: to look kindly upon ignorance and only act when necessary to prevent unhappiness in the whole rather than just the self. Modesty is to know what disgusts you and weed it out--disassociate from your disgust and learn to accept it lest it blind you.

and beauty is to possess good qualities such as detachment
I agree with this. To see beauty in something, one must see it from the environment it comes from. Beauty is defined by an interaction between our association and our instinct. To see beauty in something usually described as ugly, one must understand it and where it come from. One must disassociate from one's own background.

Real happiness is to transcend material happiness and unhappiness
Yes.

and real misery is to be implicated in searching for sex pleasure
I'm not quite sure I understand. I do not think that real misery is only defined by a search for sex. Real misery to me is despair: a feeling of having no escape from the evil or mundane.

A wise man is one who knows the process of freedom from bondage
I agree. A wise man knows the unknown. The unknown is only discovered by freeing your mind from the constraints of conventional thought.

and a fool is one who identifies with his material body and mind
I do not agree. I feel that a wise man should also be able to identify with his material body and mind. If he cannot, then he is ignorant to it and therefore a slave to it. He must know his own limitations within a physical body if he is to ever overcome them.

The real path in life is that which leads to God
Again, the usage of the word god requires more definition. If by god you mean creation, and by this statement you mean that our path is to create, then I agree. But I would also say that it includes a necessary maintenance of god's creation of which our survival depends upon.

In other words, anything that leads to destruction of god's creation is unwanted. Anything that creates upon god's creation is wanted (for we are all the tools of god, are we not? therefore our creations are his own).

This becomes unclear, though, when we ask if it is right to destroy a destructor.

and the wrong path is sense gratification, by which consciousness is bewildered
Yes, consciousness is bewildered by this, but it is bewildered by so many things. I think sense gratification is something which we require to tell us the right path. But some instruments of destruction implement this and overload our senses with a false feeling of gratification. The thing to do here is to decipher one from the other. Things of destruction will overload your senses and leave you feeling empty whereas constructive sense gratification will leave you with a sense of satisfaction long after it has faded.

Actual heaven is the predominance of the mode of goodness
I agree

whereas hell is the predominance of ignorance
I think I agree. To rephrase, you could say hell is the predominance of destructive interference.

God is everyone's true friend, acting as the guru of the entire universe
I agree. As a human we perceive god as being our own tool, but he perceives all of us as his tools. We use his creation as he uses us.

and one's home is the human body
yes. for as long as one is human.

Roy

I make these statements not in condescension, but in curiosity. I voted on the poll, but felt it necessary to clear up discretions in order to answer some of them.
thanks
much appreciated

(BTW the OP is a scriptural quote from the Srimad Bhagavatam)

“ Full opulence consists of full strength, intelligence, beauty, wealth, renunciation, and fame ”
In a way, yes. But any one can lead to the others depending on the person and situation. Strength can develop. Intelligence is simply knowing what to do in the situation to achieve a goal. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. wealth is undefined and can be many things. renunciation (presumably of sin) is like a rebirth. fame comes from achieving goals that affect many people.
this is actually a description of god - god is the most strong, most intelligent, everyone finds him attractive, possessor of all wealth, the most detached and the most famous.
It enables a distinction between any other cosmic or mortal possessor of opulence and god


“ The supreme gain in life is devotional service to God ”
This is why I dislike the usage of the word god in most cases: because it is undefined, especially in this case. The one agreed upon definition is "creator of the universe". How am I supposed to devote service to that which created the universe? Does this mean I am supposed to create instead of destroy? If so, then I agree.
there is the example that a parent may give the child $10 to purchase something for their birthday - in other words devotional service to god means we work with what is allotted to us by god in the service of god (what is accepted is the sincerity of such service, since the means are already supplied)


“ actual education is nullifying the false perception of duality within the soul ”
If I understand you correctly, then I agree. The soul is not separate from the material world just as the spiritual world is not separate from the material. Understanding this allows one to correlate the two and be more at peace with oneself.
Real education means to give up the false idea that anything is separate from the Lord, the source of all potencies. (in other words if one is thinking this bread crumb belongs to me and the rest of the universe belongs to god, they are still have a perception of duality within the soul)

“ Real modesty is to be disgusted with improper activities ”
I don't agree with this one. I believe that real modesty includes modesty for everything around you as well as yourself. To be modest is almost like being naive, but in a grandmotherly kind of way: to look kindly upon ignorance and only act when necessary to prevent unhappiness in the whole rather than just the self. Modesty is to know what disgusts you and weed it out--disassociate from your disgust and learn to accept it lest it blind you.
the danger about improper activities is that they are conducive to ignorance (and ignorance is not conducive to knowing god). Modesty is referred to in the sense of shyness - in other words its not sufficient to be embarrassed about improper activities. If one is truly disgusted by them, there is no opportunity to adopting them (and thus there will be no opportunity for one to become ignorant) . If a theist is not disgusted by improper activities, they run the risk of becoming complacent about them

“ and beauty is to possess good qualities such as detachment ”
I agree with this. To see beauty in something, one must see it from the environment it comes from. Beauty is defined by an interaction between our association and our instinct. To see beauty in something usually described as ugly, one must understand it and where it come from. One must disassociate from one's own background.
precisely

“ Real happiness is to transcend material happiness and unhappiness ”
Yes.
“ and real misery is to be implicated in searching for sex pleasure ”
I'm not quite sure I understand. I do not think that real misery is only defined by a search for sex. Real misery to me is despair: a feeling of having no escape from the evil or mundane.
the suggestion is that sex life is mundane, and thus to seek it, is to seek further entanglement

“ A wise man is one who knows the process of freedom from bondage ”
I agree. A wise man knows the unknown. The unknown is only discovered by freeing your mind from the constraints of conventional thought.
true - surmounting the mind is where it is at

SB 11.16.11 Among subtle things I am the spirit soul, and of things that are difficult to conquer I am the mind.

“ and a fool is one who identifies with his material body and mind ”
I do not agree. I feel that a wise man should also be able to identify with his material body and mind. If he cannot, then he is ignorant to it and therefore a slave to it. He must know his own limitations within a physical body if he is to ever overcome them.
by the word "identify" it is meant that one thinks "I am this"

- if one thinks "I am this body" then that is unfortunate because the body is subject to disease, old age and eventually death, thus there is no actual platform for happiness.

- if one thinks "I am this mind" then that is also unfortunate because the mind has a very flickering nature, hankering for things and then rejecting those sought after things at a later date (If the desires of the mind are completely fulfilled in this instant, it will engineer newer ones in the next), so here too there is no platform for happiness

the real identity of the living entity is the soul (consciousness)

“ The real path in life is that which leads to God ”
Again, the usage of the word god requires more definition. If by god you mean creation, and by this statement you mean that our path is to create, then I agree. But I would also say that it includes a necessary maintenance of god's creation of which our survival depends upon.In other words, anything that leads to destruction of god's creation is unwanted. Anything that creates upon god's creation is wanted (for we are all the tools of god, are we not? therefore our creations are his own).

This becomes unclear, though, when we ask if it is right to destroy a destructor.

god is the cause of all causes (of which this creation is one such cause) - the real path is that which leads to the association of that cause of all causes.
The only thing we can essentially create is a means to close or distance ourselves from this cause (if we trash the planet, it would no doubt constitute the later)


“ and the wrong path is sense gratification, by which consciousness is bewildered ”
Yes, consciousness is bewildered by this, but it is bewildered by so many things. I think sense gratification is something which we require to tell us the right path. But some instruments of destruction implement this and overload our senses with a false feeling of gratification. The thing to do here is to decipher one from the other. Things of destruction will overload your senses and leave you feeling empty whereas constructive sense gratification will leave you with a sense of satisfaction long after it has faded.
basically there are two types of sense gratification - one is the type in relation to matter and the other is in relation to god - it seems that you have hit upon that

“ Actual heaven is the predominance of the mode of goodness ”
I agree
“ whereas hell is the predominance of ignorance ”
I think I agree. To rephrase, you could say hell is the predominance of destructive interference.
lol - yep sounds like ignorance to me

“ God is everyone's true friend, acting as the guru of the entire universe ”
I agree. As a human we perceive god as being our own tool, but he perceives all of us as his tools. We use his creation as he uses us.
the issue is that being the best friend and teacher of everyone, his ability to determine what will make us satisfied and successful is greater than ours or anyone else's


“ and one's home is the human body ”
yes. for as long as one is human.
the idea is that the human form of life affords luxuries that are not available in the animal species - namely the facility to understand god and progress towards his shelter - thus saying one home is much like any other home has dire consequences for spiritual life

Oli

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
generally if a person (at least of principles) approaches something that is not theirs, they attempt to see that it is returned to the owner
”
So a wealthy person who renounces, would acknowledge the wealth isn't his and get rid: thereby becoming not wealthy...
there is a difference between getting rid of something and returning something to the rightful person (at least for someone of principles)
hint - a clue as to who is the rightful owner lies in the first proposition

Full opulence consists of full strength, intelligence, beauty, wealth, renunciation, and fame

“
its a good place to begin as a general indicator
”
There are no unjust or immoral laws?
Anywhere?
Laws vary from country to country, time to time: so does "proper"?
hence its a good general indicator and not an absolute one (general indicators by necessity have a few qualities of absolute ones)

“
it enabled you to survive a divorce without committing suicide or killing your wife (.... actually you haven't clearly indicated that you aren't in jail, so maybe we should suspend that idea ....)
”
And if I'd been detached I wouldn't have got married in the first place.
wisdom in hindsight
;)

(PS, I'm not in jail - but you only have my word on that )
lol - I'll keep it in mind

“
happiness is in relation to an object - if all you are capable of discerning (due to your theoretical base no doubt) is that one type of object exists (this body and things related to this body is practically one category) you only have one type of happiness , which has the habit of wringing dry more quickly as time goes on
”
I haven't come across anything other than this body to use as a basis.
hence experience and theoretical base are closely related
(In other words you have no reason to know any better because you have no reason to act any differently - such a situation can be changed by philosophical appeals, ie appeals to reason)

“
relates to your earlier response
me - and real misery is to be implicated in searching for sex pleasure ”
you - Getting further off-track.
”


“
if you don't experience divorce as a miserable consequence of the pursuit of sex life,
”
False assumption on your part. The divorce wasn't actually related to sex or the pursuit of it.
but forging the relationship was
(I assume you didn't marry her to get to know her father better)
“
the first step is that you extract your deep rooted desire for happiness from things related to the body and the mind
”
There are things other than body and mind?
certainly - perhaps it would be better to discuss this at the end

“
I guess the solution lies in locating an object that is not related to the body or the mind to seek gratification
”
See above.
ditto above
e


“
you want me to provide examples or indications of how lust, etc shapes our vision?
”
Go ahead.
Ok suppose a young man is sitting is sitting in a movie theatre. Just as the lights go down and the movie begins, he feels a brushing against his elbow and realizes that a person has sat down in the seat next to him. From the corner of his eye he notices her slim physique and long hair tied back in a pony tail and is immediately absorbed by the desire to perform all sorts of noble deeds for the betterment of her welfare (ie he is overcome by lust).
Due to the nature of the cinema environment, he is reluctant to make eye contact and begin conversation, but instead spends the next 90 minutes in a state of simultaneous anticipation and nervousness. In such a state, who is the main character, what is the movie about, he cannot say .... instead all he can focus his senses on is the sweetness of her musky bodily aroma that fills the vicinity of the cinema seats, while his mind is in a flux, trying to anticipate her intentions with each movement she makes on their shared arm rest and each slurp of her coca-cola. Finally, after what feels like a millennium, the credits roll and the lights come on. Gathering his wits, he turns to strike up a conversation, only to find she is not there .... or more correctly ..... she never was there. Next to him is a skinny old hippy man (with a packet of musk incense in his pocket)
:D
(do you think this sounds familiar to us at all)?

“
hell is a relative term (relative to ignorance)
”
And children are relatively ignorant.
compared to adults, yes
(correction - compared to some adults)

“
given the nature of our ever increasingly complex world of legalities, "divorce" and "carefree" tend to be incompatible terms
”
Divorce was history by then: carefree-ness was nearly total.
ok - so that leaves the other standard aspects of material anxiety open

“
anyway, the general categories that threaten our status as "carefree" are

1 - sufferings caused by our own body or mind (detachment can be a good quality to help deal with this)
2 - sufferings caused by other living entities, including ex-wives (once again, detachment helps)
3 - sufferings caused by natural phenomena, eg flood, fire, earthquake, etc (once again, detachment helps)

hence to be endowed with good qualities (such as detachment) is the best asset to have in one's possession, since even the richest person can not buy their way out of material suffering (in fact they have the tendency to be the target of further suffering – unless of course they have good qualities like detachment - , particularly at the hands of people with bad qualities like envy)
”
Um, detached from ex-wife - not detached from life.
ex-wife, smashed car, broken leg, lost wallet, glum depression, busted hot water system, hyper tension, volcanic eruption - whatever it may be, detachment will get you through life a hell of a lot easier than money (or some other material attachment)

“
must be because you possess good qualities like detachment
”
Yeah, I'm an arrogant care for no-one guy.
arrogance is a symptom of attachment ("I am so good")
with detachment, good qualities like compassion for others can become catalyzed, since if we are too attached to what we want or what we think we are there is no space to actually focus on the needs, interests and concerns of others


“
so if I took away all your envy, lust, etc you would cease to exist (or become a person that would be horribly different from who you are now)????
”
Since I wouldn't have those as part of my personal make-up any more then I wouldn't be me would I?
unless you have some sort of lifestyle that necessitates being nasty (like a mafia hit man for instance), its not clear why you are attached (or why you think others would be attached) to you having reliable reserves of lust, envy, wrath, etc.
In other words its not clear why one would feel the notion of "becoming a better person" threatening to their sense of identity

“
or would it allow the predominance of your good qualities, like detachment, to flourish ....???
”
Aren't people a mix of things - I like things - is that not a mild lust )or whatever) for those things?
If I lose my "bad qualities" then I won't like those things anymore - hence not me.
To get a clearer picture of this, consider a line spoken by Prahlada Maharaja in Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.5.31: durasaya ye bahir-artha-maninah. Dur means difficult, and asaya is a person's intention. Thus durasaya refers to a contradictory intention, one that lands us in difficulty. The nature of that contradiction is the enjoyment of the material world, in which external sense objects (bahir) are the gain (artha). The contradiction here is that our claiming possession of sense objects does not make us the enjoyers of the material world, because we don't know how to enjoy matter without suffering. In our efforts to overcome this contradiction, we let the imagination (manina) do what it will with sense objects.

In other words lust does not mean the quality of attraction. Lust/envy/etc means the quality of being attracted to things that cause suffering (or as in the cinema scenario, bewilderment) - of course by the agency of our mind (imagination) we override such actual experiences to empower an unheeded determination to possess material things ...... as if possession of material things somehow bears a correlation to our actual experience of happiness. .....
Thus a person under the influence of lust/envy is caught up in a constant stream of desires "what a beautiful house - I wish I could live in it", "what a powerful position - I wish I could occupy it", "what a beautiful woman - I wish I could have her" etc etc in this way they have no peace (and without peace, there is no question of happiness)

This constant calling back to "I.. I.... I... I..." in relation to matter is the false calling of attraction.
If we can get attracted to things in relation to transcendence (like, you know -gulp - god), then the possibility of detachment from these inferior engagements exists

(steps off soap box)
“
what extent have you gone to investigate this?
”
How would I investigate it?
My senses, mind and body are tailored to this world.
this is the important position of transcendental literature - in one sense it is of this world (we can use our body to open it and use our eyes to read it and use our mind to think about it) in another sense it is not (since the result of doing such things enables transcendental truths to be realized eg - the nature of duality, etc)

“
then if your life is plagued by discrepancies/uncertainties/reverses and the certain prospect of annihilation and complete non-existence, its a clear indication that your knowledge, evidence and clues are very very very meager
”
That's a possibility, what are the alternatives?
the eternal, cognizant and blissful nature of transcendental knowledge
:D

“
so what's there?
If you say matter, what's matter, and what the hell are you doing in the middle of it?
”
I'm in the middle of it because that's where birth and life put me.
kind of like popeye's "I y'am what I y'am"?

(In other words its not a very satisfying answer to why are where you are)

Suppose there was an episode of twilight zone where a person comes to consciousness in a world that that is totally unfamiliar - he has no recollection of where he came from - he has no idea what he is doing here - and then he abandons all this thinking and says "Oh well "

To say the least it wouldn't make for an appealing plot



As to what matter is, it's the stuff that's all round me, (without getting into physics).
what is the relationship between you and matter?


“
one could begin by asking "am I this body"
If you say "yes", the next question would be "which body are you", since due to the constant movement of matter, the body you indicate by the words "this one I am in at the moment" has already come and gone.
”
The moment has come and gone, the body is mostly still here.
the body has gone too (perhaps you could indicate which parts of your body are like your sense of consciousness, ie that doesn't change with the passage of time - in other words apart from your sense of "I am", what part of your body has remained unaffected by the passage of time over the years?)

“
In other words despite all this constant flux/change/dissolution/creation of bodily atoms we constantly say "This is me"
”
Yup, that one puzzles me at times.
I am that which identifies itself as me?
so its obviously not the body (you no longer wear size 3 underwear)
and its obviously not the mind (mickey mouse doesn't cut the mustard like he used to)

what does that leave?

there is a difference between getting rid of something and returning something to the rightful person (at least for someone of principles)
hint - a clue as to who is the rightful owner lies in the first proposition
Apologies "getting rid" is used in the UK for any manner of relieving oneself of something - including passing on. Which still comes back to: renunciation precludes having.

hence its a good general indicator and not an absolute one (general indicators by necessity have a few qualities of absolute ones)
Still doesn't address the issue that I may well have differing ideas of "proper" from you.

wisdom in hindsight
Nope if detached I wouldn't have wanted to marry her - "wisdom" only by default.

(In other words you have no reason to know any better because you have no reason to act any differently - such a situation can be changed by philosophical appeals, ie appeals to reason)
Appeals to r