1. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    28 Sep '11 09:41
    ye hi samsparsa-ja bhoga duhkha-yonaya eva te
    ady-antavantah kaunteya na tesu ramate budhah

    SYNONYMS
    ye--those; hi--certainly; samsparsa-jah--by contact with the material senses; bhogah--enjoyments; duhkha--distress; yonayah--sources of; eva--certainly; te--they are; adi--beginning; anta--end; vantah--subject to; kaunteya--O son of Kunti; na--never; tesu--in those; ramate--takes delight; budhah--the intelligent person.

    TRANSLATION
    An intelligent person does not take part in the sources of misery, which are due to contact with the material senses. O son of Kunti, such pleasures have a beginning and an end, and so the wise man does not delight in them.

    PURPORT
    Material sense pleasures are due to the contact of the material senses, which are all temporary because the body itself is temporary. A liberated soul is not interested in anything which is temporary. Knowing well the joys of transcendental pleasures, how can a liberated soul agree to enjoy false pleasure? In the Padma Purana it is said:

    ramante yogino 'nante satyanande cid-atmani iti rama-padenasau param brahmabhidhiyate

    "The mystics derive unlimited transcendental pleasures from the Absolute Truth, and therefore the Supreme Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead, is also known as Rama."

    In the Srimad-Bhagavatam also it is said:

    nayam deho deha-bhajam nr-loke kastan kaman arhate vid-bhujam ye
    tapo divyam putraka yena sattvam suddhyed yasmad brahma-saukhyam tv anantam

    "My dear sons, there is no reason to labor very hard for sense pleasure while in this human form of life; such pleasures are available to the stool-eaters [hogs]. Rather, you should undergo penances in this life by which your existence will be purified, and, as a result, you will be able to enjoy unlimited transcendental bliss." (Bhag 5.5.1)
    Therefore, those who are true yogis or learned transcendentalists are not attracted by sense pleasures, which are the causes of continuous material existence. The more one is addicted to material pleasures, the more he is entrapped by material miseries.
  2. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    28 Sep '11 10:27
    Originally posted by Dasa
    "My dear sons, there is no reason to labor very hard for sense pleasure while in this human form of life; such pleasures are available to the stool-eaters [hogs]. Rather, you should undergo penances in this life by which your existence will be purified, and, as a result, you will be able to enjoy unlimited transcendental bliss."
    I see humans as spiritual beings and extraordinarily diverse. I don't accept the profoundly misanthropic vision of this text you've copied & pasted for us. I think comparing humans to "the stool-eaters [hogs]" is lacking in perception, lacking in empathy, lacking in insight, lacking in life affirming positivity, and of absolutely no spiritual value at all. Can you offer any examples of how the above text offers practical advice to ordinary spiritual people going about their everyday lives, facing the ups and downs, at work and with their partners, earning a living, coping with the pressures of work, raising a family, following religions other than yours, participating in ordinary communities?
  3. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    28 Sep '11 11:41
    Originally posted by FMF
    I see humans as spiritual beings and extraordinarily diverse. I don't accept the profoundly misanthropic vision of this text you've copied & pasted for us. I think comparing humans to "the stool-eaters [hogs]" is lacking in perception, lacking in empathy, lacking in insight, lacking in life affirming positivity, and of absolutely no spiritual value at all. Can y ...[text shortened]... ising a family, following religions other than yours, participating in ordinary communities?
    Your argument is with the Vedas not me.
  4. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    28 Sep '11 11:562 edits
    Originally posted by Dasa
    Your argument is with the Vedas not me.
    Fair enough. But you are spreading its word here. Do you at least understand when someone says they find it totally lacking in relevance, applicability, empathy or joy of life, right, even if you don't agree with that characterization? You've lived a life and you've been around people. You've raised kids. You've met their teachers. their friends parents. people at work. You've dabbled in two or three religions. You can't honestly think that none of them were spiritual. You must know what you're promoting here is simply not going to have any purchase with many spiritual people who do not submit to the "authority" you have chosen. If I were to say that you come across as if you are the most deeply unhappy poster in this community [and your screen name change didn't seem to help matters], are you able to imagine why someone might think that? I ask that in good faith?
  5. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    28 Sep '11 18:23
    Originally posted by FMF
    Fair enough. But you are spreading its word here. Do you at least understand when someone says they find it totally lacking in relevance, applicability, empathy or joy of life, right, even if you don't agree with that characterization? You've lived a life and you've been around people. You've raised kids. You've met their teachers. their friends parents. people ...[text shortened]... ers], are you able to imagine why someone might think that? I ask that in good faith?
    I am happily post truth and exposing falsity.
  6. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    28 Sep '11 21:54
    Originally posted by FMF
    Fair enough. But you are spreading its word here. Do you at least understand when someone says they find it totally lacking in relevance, applicability, empathy or joy of life, right, even if you don't agree with that characterization? You've lived a life and you've been around people. You've raised kids. You've met their teachers. their friends parents. people ...[text shortened]... ers], are you able to imagine why someone might think that? I ask that in good faith?
    I actually find this text quite spiritually valuable. Certain dogmatic parts, concerning the omnipresense of Krishna or the immortality of the soul, don't relate to me. The idea of detachment articulated in this text is quite relevant though. The Gita does not advocate asceticism, withdrawl from the world or dereliction of social responsibilities. That is in contrast to many other hardcore mystics who would give you the impression that sanctity only comes with unswerving self-abnegation. Rather, what each person has to do is simply detach themselves from the outcome of their labour. In a way, the Gita is like the guide to mysticism for the ordinary person. Isn't that valuable advice for everone? -- don't always be concerned about whether the future brings pain or pleasure, what the outcome of your labours will, just do your job in the world and focus on higher spiritual things.
  7. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    28 Sep '11 23:361 edit
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Rather, what each person has to do is simply detach themselves from the outcome of their labour. In a way, the Gita is like the guide to mysticism for the ordinary person. Isn't that valuable advice for everone? -- don't always be concerned about whether the future brings pain or pleasure, what the outcome of your labours will, just do your job in the world and focus on higher spiritual things.
    No. This seems to me to be trying to replace the real and extraordinary shared experience and potential of the human spirit during its lifetime with a kind of numbness and elaborate conjecture about afterlife, and then passing all this off as being somehow "higher". It actually strikes me as being hollow and wasteful. I think any perceived 'bliss' that may result from this form of detachment is in fact meaningless and essentially selfish. It comes across to me as something akin to spiritual anaesthetic.
  8. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    28 Sep '11 23:42
    Originally posted by FMF
    No. This seems to me to be trying to replace the real and extraordinary shared experience and potential of the human spirit during its lifetime with a kind of numbness and elaborate conjecture about afterlife, and then passing all this off as being somehow "higher". It actually strikes me as being hollow and wasteful. I think any perceived 'bliss' that may result from this form of detachment is in fact meaningless and essentially selfish.
    I'm absolutely positive you've misinterpreted Conrau K. In any case, I don't how you get your diagnosis from what he posted.
  9. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    28 Sep '11 23:491 edit
    Originally posted by bbarr
    I'm absolutely positive you've misinterpreted Conrau K. In any case, I don't how you get your diagnosis from what he posted.
    "This" in my post refers to Bhagavad Gita. If Dasa and Conrau K want to detach themselves from the outcome of their labour, 'just do their job in the world' and focus on what they claim are spiritual things and call what they find "higher", then that is fine. Just saying it doesn't work for me. Conrau K asked me 'Isn't that valuable advice for everyone?' My answer is no, not really.
  10. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    28 Sep '11 23:562 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    No. This seems to me to be trying to replace the real and extraordinary shared experience and potential of the human spirit during its lifetime with a kind of numbness and elaborate conjecture about afterlife, and then passing all this off as being somehow "higher". It actually strikes me as being hollow and wasteful. I think any perceived 'bliss' that may resul ...[text shortened]... s and essentially selfish. It comes across to me as something akin to spiritual anaesthetic.
    Ok. I think the Gita is very reminiscent of classical Stoicism. It's basic moral command is to detach oneself from mental perturbationes, whether anxiety or desire (in fact, both the Gita and Stoicism connect anxiety with desire -- desire and attachment being the antecedent for all mental disturbances.) In that the Gita is kind of like Stoicism leading to spiritual anaestheticism.

    I cannot authoritatively answer your objection that this is really a kind of 'numbness'. I do not know enough about the Gita. I am not a scholar of Sanskrit. It does seem to me, however, that while the Gita commends detachment and freedom from desire, it does not recommend inactivity. It explicitly says that the detached man can still have a family or serve in war. It is not recommending mental blankess. I guess the idea is that a person has to 'want without wanting': he has to want something and act on that want, according to his nature, but want in a way that he would not be troubled if his want was unfulfilled. That much at least is the stuff of conventional self-help literature.

    Finally, I don't think that the 'higher things' are something outside of human experience. Krishna says in the Gita that he is in all things. The spiritually wise person finds Krishna in all things around him, acts as he should, but not troubled if the results of his efforts are not fruitful.
  11. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    29 Sep '11 00:06
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Finally, I don't think that the 'higher things' are something outside of human experience.
    I didn't say they were. Religionists' stock in trade is to define and assert what is "higher" and then arrange for dogma to 'prove it'. I am not a religionist and I've not come across one whose 'higher things' are relevant to me.
  12. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    29 Sep '11 00:09
    Originally posted by FMF
    I didn't say they were. Religionists' stock in trade is to define and assert what is "higher" and then arrange for dogma to 'prove it'. I am not a religionist and I've not come across one whose 'higher things' are relevant to me.
    I don't really understand this post. Are you accusing me of religionism? I am not a Hindu; I am a lapsed Catholic.
  13. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    29 Sep '11 00:11
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I cannot authoritatively answer your objection that this is really a kind of 'numbness'. I do not know enough about the Gita. I am not a scholar of Sanskrit.
    Why do you think I want you to say something "authoritative" to me? Isn't the issue of it being in Sanskrit or not being in Sanskrit just a kind of technocratic issue?
  14. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    29 Sep '11 00:13
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I don't really understand this post. Are you accusing me of religionism? I am not a Hindu; I am a lapsed Catholic.
    Actually, I am fully aware of your 'post-Christian' status! 😀 Would you call it that? If so, it is a status that we share. No, I don't think you are a religionist.
  15. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91531
    29 Sep '11 06:31
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I actually find this text quite spiritually valuable. Certain dogmatic parts, concerning the omnipresense of Krishna or the immortality of the soul, don't relate to me. The idea of detachment articulated in this text is quite relevant though. The Gita does not advocate asceticism, withdrawl from the world or dereliction of social responsibilities. That is i ...[text shortened]... ome of your labours will, just do your job in the world and focus on higher spiritual things.
    "Isn't that valuable advice for everyone?" . Well put,
    Conrau K, it is valuable for everyone,imo. Either directly or indirectly.

    You have shown a fine understanding of the Gita for someone who is not really into it otherwise.

    Seems any support Dasa's message gets , gets attacked straight away by some posters here, regardless of any other good points his posts may have. (This is in part Dasa not answering questions properly BUT also he presents an easy target now, as so many have had a go at him).

    I cant believe how FMF, in particular, can go on and on about 3% of Dasa's posts and ignore the rest, time and time again.

    I ,myself ,try to look for the positive in all religons, as you seem to have done here with the Gita.

    I also look for balance and harmony in corresponding with anyone, for I see their as a sign that I am headed in the right direction or not .

    I have been accused of being "wishy,washy" by FMF and now robbie carrobie. (No doubt rc thought that his point would be stronger if doubled someone elses criticisms of my posts).
    Awesome, you guys have got nothing. You guys have ignored my questions or been so overwhelnmingly defensive about certain things that I just feel empowered by the absence of any real criticisms against my ontological stance.
    Wishy washy? as read on the screen without getting into the spirit of, or without really caring, i think my views should come off as wishy washy. I am relying on the "intelligence" of the reader to fully understand my points, as I think all parties concerned have shown themselves to be intelligent enough. Also I am asking the posters to get into the spirit of what I am writing.


    All this seems to be reaffirming the things I have already learnt, and to have someone like you put up a positive, life affirming post about another religon tells me once again that there are no coincidences in this life. The only accidents we need worry about are the "accidents about finding god".

    Not very well put there, but anyhoo thanks all the same.
Back to Top