verklingen

Ziplock:

This is a very though-provoking post. I thank you for bringing the words of Mr. Lee to my attention. The essence of what he is saying is indicative of the mindset of a devotee:

These words are very wise. The cause of all worldly misery is the material tendancy to categorize and distinguish. As humans, we incarnate this concept. A look at any human studies will show you our tendancy to sort everything according to how we see them: from the animal kingdom to cellestial formations to chemical compositions. These designations graphically illustrate what I mean when I say that we operate under illusion. All creation is simply energy existing in what we see to be different states, but the fact is that it is all energy, however we or our rational mind view it. To truly experience anything beyond the dull modes of our material nature, we have to become free of these designations.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

JMOxLLELLO

Rev i know exactly what u mean i think like that when i smoke too much weed...i believe that its all me...its alwasy been me...and when i die everything dies....but idk i could be wrong u all could jsut be my mind playing tricks on my spiritual mind or w/e making me believe there is a universe and but if u guys are thinking the same shit...how is this posible..we have to be one conciesness or we all are wrong....i need to smoke alot and have a long talk with someone smart....any1 down? bongsmilie

ziplock

My question is thus: Where does the devotee stand in relation to the following?

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.

verklingen

^
If I am understanding these words correctly, they do very well at explaining the problem of our false ego. Race, class, status, belief, gender, sexual orientation, religion, nationality: the false ego is comprised of these many designations, all of which are based on our senses. Identification with this false ego, and the pride or shame derived therefrom, is the cause of all social, economical, political, and cultural conflict.

"Muslim Pakistanis" kill "Indian Hindus" and vice versa based on pride in their nationality and various differences they perceive by using their senses to consider the constitution of their adversaries. The least intelligent man will find favor with one and take sides, the intelligent man knows that national/cultural/religious differences are inconsequential and will see that it is only humans pointlessly killing other humans, but the most intelligent man will not even see humans; he will see two energetics, equal and congruous as extensions of the same source, engaged in satisfying their senses.

When one can comprehend that all lifeforms extend from the same source and are thus equal in their constitution, he knows truth and is said to be enlightened. Such enlightenment begins the process of becoming free from the bonds to which our false ego is fain to have us adhere and, consequently, causes our senses to relinquish their control over our destiny. But due to our societal indoctrination, it is very difficult for one to truly believe this, even if he can understand it through the intellect.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

bookends4u

Okay I didnt read the last two pages of the discussion... To me, personnally, it is very very easy to be detached for material needs... I'm one of the most unmaterialist person you will find... I never ask anything on my birthday and I never spend money exept for drugs and other stuff I can go without easily...

BUT, I cannot understand how someone could be unattached to a girl (this comming from a guy)... Like without it life is just crap... You need someone to hold every once in a will... VER, what is your position on love and relationships?

+ would you say music is a product of material life? Or spiritual? Krishna playing flute on one leg seems so cool to me haha...

__________________
----------
------
----
-

Here's a little something you can all join it with...
It's pretty easy and I hope it's new...
Make your own world up if you want to...
Any old world that you think will do...

verklingen

The sensation that life is crap without a relationship is a function of identifying with your senses. While caught within this material world, we assume a body. No matter what body we assume (from human to bacterium), we become slaves of material desire. This desire manifests through the senses to produce discomfort, and the way in which we receive this discomfort causes us to want for satisfaction of this desire in order to alleviate our it. Here is a painting which illustrates this concept quite nicely:


This picture is a representation of the body. The chariot is the body itself and is being drawn this way and that by five horses, each of which represent a physical sense. The driver represents the intelligence and its reins represent the mind. The driver is able to use the reins to pull the horses into the direction it sees fit, but the horses are just as able at overpowering the driver and continuing on their own way. Finally, as passenger, we have the eternal spirit-soul which is so bewildered by the tumultuous journey it is taking part in that it is able to do little more than whisper suggestions to the driver every now and again.

This is a perfect metaphor for how we are associating with this material world we inhabit.

Love and relationships are very nice: it is our constitutional position to be loving and serving. But there is something which must be understood.

An ocean has certain qualities, and all of these qualities can be discovered by analyzing a single drop of its water. The only real difference between the ocean and the drop, albeit an important one, is scale: the ocean is very large while a drop is very minute. Similarly, as eternal spirit-souls who are extensions of Krishna's energy, we posess the same qualities of God but the level at which we do so is vastly inferior to the level at which God posesses them. One of these qualities is to be eternally satisfied. We have this quality of always being satisfied, but due to the material nature into which we have manifested we are forced to interact with a body. This interaction places us in the position of bewilderment, and we assume the position of passenger in our material chariot: satisfying this and that sense by following its lead.

Our desire for love and relationships is also a function of this.

Any device or object and any creations made with them can be considered material or spiritual depending upon the nature of its utility. For example, a building can be used to assemble people together to talk about God or it can be used as a strip bar.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

reverie

What do you think about this concept in regards to the human senses? Do you think it could be applicable to them as well?

__________________

dissolve popular detachment

verklingen

^
But of course, my dear!

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

Waves

Wow!

Could you elaborate on what the vedas say about the other 3 quarters of existence?

The reason i ask is that my own travels had led me to believe that there ARE indeed four areas to our system. not only this but most major religions, when you look at their core, use a four-area system to describe our reality.

what a cool coincidence It really does make me believe that science is just discovering things "officially" that some people have already known in the past.

__________________
On this life that we call home
The years go fast and the days go so slow

JcPizwink

coincidentally, the number 4 is pretty cool....

You know, how it's the first number not a sum of the previous 2...

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13...

Probably has nothing to do with it but still cool coincidence.

Plus 4 is how many exactly equal quadrants you get in a circle (or a sphere) if you cut it precicely on its horizontal and vertical axis...es

Ego Tripping

^ Awesome, good point. Also creates Right Angles.

__________________

ziplock

List off some things for me that aren't based on our senses.

Also, wouldn't the devotee by being a devotee be satisfying their false ego?

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.

verklingen

Hey guys! Just got back from a quick family vacation of visiting my wife's family up in Illinois. It's good to be home, sorry about the belated responses.

To be quite honest, I've yet to study the text which delves the deepest into Vedic cosmology: Srimad Bhagavatam, the second canto of which deals with the cosmic manifestation. It is a very long text, and a detailed study would be very time-consuming. I'm still getting my head around what Krishna has to tell me in the comparatively short Bhagavad-Gita! So I'm sorry I can't answer your question, I know how dissapointing this must be.

As for your other point of "four areas to our system," I believe you are absolutely correct. The importance of the number 4 comes as no surprise in light of the fact that almost all spiritual knowledge descends from the ancient Vedas; that all the candles of spirituality were lit from the original Vedic flame.

Anyway, I truly wish I could elaborate in regards to the divisions of existence! I myself am dissapointed that I cannot.

I suppose I could have been a little more exact in my wording. I do not mean to say that these things are based on our senses, but that our conception of them is based on our senses. In regards to our identity, we do possess a true identity as eternal spirit-souls, but our entanglement in the material condition causes us to accept the material body we inhabit as our identity.

It is the same with all earthly things, including our various relationships with other people. For example, a son can cut the grass for his father and feel very proud of himself that he has helped his father in this way. But this feeling is only present due to the relationship the son and father percieve between themselves: this is the bond of material illusion. In reality, this feeling is a corrupt representation of the satisfaction we mutually share with God while serving Him. It is our constitutional position to be rendering service to God, and the satisfaction derived therefrom is transcendental and pure. But due to our senses and false ego, we are fain to apply the attributes of this transcendental relationship we share with God to the transient relationships we share with our peers.

But it does not stop there. Every relationship we can share with God (not just that of father and son) is present here in the material world due to our constitutional position of relating with and serving God. Depending on the purity of our devotion to Him, we can serve God as a child does its parent, as a friend does his friend, and even as mother and child. What is more, some high-souled devotees can experience these relations even while in the material world and take part in His pastimes when God manifests Himself on this plane.

So it is not our senses nor our false ego which cause us to seek the satisfaction of these relationships in our lives, but it is our senses and false ego which cause us to express these relationships through other living entities.

Why you clever fox, it's good to know you actually read posts and ponder the consequences of people's assertions.

The short answer is yes. I am ultimately scratching an itch of my false ego by labeling myself a "Vedic devotee" or by calling myself a servant of Krishna. But while this is not entirely appropriate, it is not altogether detrimental. From an outsider's point of view, the life of a devotee is very difficult. Just consider for a moment what tremendous efforts are required in quelling your every desire and serving only God! In giving up eating and having sex for pleasure, or distancing yourself from all forms of intoxication entirely! It is difficult work in the beginning, and for we who are so conditioned in material life we may need some help.

For example, a soldier is just a man without his uniform. When he dons his uniform, he assumes the bearing of a soldier and draws strength or confidence from it. In this same way, dressing oneself as a devotee gives one the strength to overcome the miseries of material life. From here, he can become truly free from the confines of his false ego, but you can't snuff out a blaze on the magnitude of material conditioning in one fell swoop. You must go one step at a time.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

ziplock

So the spirit-soul would be a conception, based off of our senses. And by participating in a concept (ie: integrating it into our lives, thinking about it, etc) we'd then be interacting with it in order to satisfy ourselves just as we would do interacting with another person. Is that it? So basically, doing anything at all, would be satisfying the senses and false ego.

I guess my question is, in what form do we serve God? What's the job description for a servant of God? Why is this position referred to as "servant"?

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.

verklingen

I believe you're missing the point. The spirit soul is not a conception, nor is it based on our senses. It is our identification with the body as our true self which is a conception, and that is based on our senses. No one can use his senses to even learn about the existence of the spirit-soul, so how could he interact with, and thus identify with, it by them?

We never interact with our spirit-soul. The spirit-soul interacts with the gross body and its senses to produce the various symptoms of material life (growth, consciousness, et cetera) and material desires: the purpose of which is to maintain these symptoms. Its interactions with the subtle body produce the false ego. "Cogito ergo sum" is an example of one such interaction with the subtle body (namely, the mind) which reinforces the bewilderment brought on by the false ego.

So we are constantly interacting and identifying with these two facets of our material existence: the gross and subtle. It is our nature under the material condition to do this, and in order to do so we must forget our original constitution of being eternal spirit-souls who are part and parcel of God. This ignorance enables us to seek enjoyment, which is the reason we have manifested here.

God enjoys eternally, and we share in His transcendental enjoyment when we serve Him. But for some reason or another, we were not satisfied with this and decided to seek enjoyment through our own endeavors by serving ourselves. Though we are eternal, we are given the illusion of being temporary so we may enjoy the temporary satisfaction attainable through our own efforts. This is the mercy of God, because we are quantitatively inferior to Him and can only attain temporary satisfaction by our limited potency while He is always experiencing eternal satisfaction by His unlimited potency.

But we exist eternally, so God has designed the material world to proceed in cycles. This allows us to continue our eternal existence while not feeling the bite of eternity. By virtue of this illusion of temporariness we can enjoy the transient fruits of our efforts and thus continue the illusion of satisfaction. It is a wonderful system, but is not to be revered. Any enjoyment attainable here is a perverse corruption of the transcendental enjoyment of the spiritual worlds.

So yes, anything we do in order to attain some self-serving satisfaction (such as meditating in pursuit of enlightenment) further entangles us in the illusion of being temporary. But our actions are not limited to transient self-service, we can also serve God transcendentally.

The simplest way to serve God is to perform your normal duties, but do them with God in mind. It sounds a little cheesy, but it really is that easy. But you must first accept God as a personality: indeed, the Supreme Personality.

If you hire a servant, he will benefit from his exertions based on the quality of his service. If his service is of such caliber that he leaves nothing to be desired, your satisfaction will be evident by your service to him (granting him payment, food, et cetera). Thus in the relationship of master and servant, both are mutually benefitted based on the service of the servant. It is the same way with God: if we serve Him with love and devotion, we will be just as satisfied as God (Who is eternally satisfied).

So by serving God in any small or large way we can, we are satisfying ourselves while satisfying God just as a whole tree is satisfied by watering only its root or as the whole body is satisfied by providing food to only the stomach. Even if these services are done half-heartedly or without pure devotion, the transcendental satisfaction God grants through this service will eventually awaken a pure love within the servant, and he will become a true devotee who serves God in everything he does. This is our original position, and one who once again attains to this status is eternally satisfied and fit for a return to the spiritual realm.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

JahBohl

It doesn't sound "cheesy", it sounds delusional. In another thread you state that "god" is mearly the enigmatic force that "started" this universe (my paraphrasing)....her e is your quote- But here you reference "god" as the "supreme personality". So which is it? When it fits your argument "god" is undefinable, but when it gets down to it you define away.

As far as "serving" goes; I'm not going to serve anyone, anything, or any made up force or "personality". (Of course the prior statement excludes my wife who I serve (and service) dutifully ).

__________________
"If you know what life is worth, then you would look for yours right here on Earth" ~Peter Tosh

I'm in favor of it as long as it's multiple choice. ~Kurt Rambis, on drug testing

verklingen

Alright master of semantics. For that specific discussion I decided to refrain from referencing God's specifics and instead refered to His status as prime mover, using Aquinas' logical conclusions to prove the necessity of a prime mover. Here, the specific qualities and characteristics of God and our relation to these qualities have been called into question, and I have accordingly asnwered in more specific detail.

So yes, when semantics will get in the way of talking about the possible existence of God (i.e. continually arguing with someone who says they will never believe in God because they don't like the Bible [for such is their close-mindedness]), I will refrain from addressing His qualities directly and merely speak of Him as a concept in order to promote fruitful discussion. But if one is directly asking for characteristics of transcendental service, discussing God's specific qualities is unavoidable.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

JahBohl

Thank for the compliment.



All I'm trying to point out is that you can't have it both ways. It's bait and switch really...you get someone to agree that there must be a prime mover, a "god", albeit undefined and enigmatic (under the guise of "to promote a fruitful discussion"). Then later you say it does have distinct characteristics and is defined. Saying that "He" should be "served" isn't any better than saying god is "some giant man in the sky with a white beard who throws lightning bolts at people who use condoms." Just be consistent, that's all.

__________________
"If you know what life is worth, then you would look for yours right here on Earth" ~Peter Tosh

I'm in favor of it as long as it's multiple choice. ~Kurt Rambis, on drug testing

verklingen

I can see your point my friend, but it should come as no surprise that I have a good explanation.

There are many stages in the pursuit of spirituality. I know, because I have gone through a great deal of them myself. But before one can even begin considering spirituality, he must come to a simple secular realization. This necessary realization is the fact that all actions must have a prime cause. From there, we can begin to ask questions such as "who executed this prime cause," "what is his nature," and "how does his creation relate to him?" But without first recognizing the necessity of a prime mover, these questions become irrelevant. Does that make sense?

So elsewhere I have described God as a concept, yet here I describe God as a distinct personality. In the first case I was discussing logical conclusions among people who are hesitant to accept even the mere possibility of a prime mover. Here I am discussing spirituality among people who have already accepted the possibility of something greater than themselves: or barring this, who can at least comprehend the possibility. So I give answers according to their relevance to the question posed.

You cannot describe mathemetical theorums to one who does not understand numbers. Similarly, you cannot explain one's spiritual nature if he cannot even accept that he has one. If you were teaching someone about numbers, you might explain them as a simple method of quantification. As your student becomes more advanced, he might learn from you that the mathematical world describes many, many things other than quantities. Armed with this new knowledge and remembering your earlier, more simple lessons, he might call your teachings inconsistent. But would he be right in doing so, or is it just that there is more to be said about mathematics than an elementary lesson can reveal?

I am not inconsistent, I just use terms and arguments which my peers with whom I am discussing these subjects are capable of coming to grips with. If someone has a hard time accepting the possibility of a prime mover, it would be a waste of my time to discuss with him our relationship to that prime mover. So I find a middle ground to explain parts of my beliefs which are easily comprehended using terms with which my fellow discussers are familiar with. This is not being inconsistent, it is helping others to understand my position in as unobtrusive a way as possible.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

ziplock

So you're telling me the spirit soul is not a conception? It's not something that occurs in the mind? It is not...The term "spirit-soul" is itself a concept. Words that are used as a catalyst for meaning, a sign post on a road. Terms like this are a minor, simplified, concept that acts as a label for a much more complex and major concept. These concepts, are of course associated to and dependant on the experience of the individual. If, for instance, you were born blind and had no experience of colour, you would not know what to apply the term "colour" to. You'd have to learn of it through other people relating it to you. Their descriptions would be the blueprints for a concept that you'd construct in relation to the term "colour."

In this cause, we have this experience of life. We observe and examine the phenomena taking place, categorizing and labelling them. Associating concept with concept, using the mind to delve deeper into the subject, to penetrate where our 5 physical senses cannot. Constructing a mental reflection of our environment in our minds. Those that most accurately reflect what is observed is those that are the most compelling to believe and thought of as the most accurate.

Considering this, I find it extremely difficult to accept that "spirit-soul" is not a concept. As the mention of "spirit-soul" triggers an associative journey through the lambyrinth of the mind coming in contact with many other concepts that culminate to produce our understanding of "spirit-soul".

The concept spirit-soul is in relation to a part of the system we're experience that we call life. There's an occurance in a certain position and we can then describe this position and it's characteristics to the extent of our ability as you have attempted to do. Our description or map would then be the "spirit-soul". We would require our senses and inquiries via them in order to arrive at our conclusions and thus fill in more of our map, and to accurately verify it's position in life's operation. Therefore, not only would it be a concept, but it would be based off our senses and stimuli that was provided by them. Or, more accurately, based off our position (I am) in relation to the senses (the body), the stimuli provided from them (the environment, or condition of the body), and the interaction between these systems, and any other contributing systems.

The terrority however is not the map, and as I quoted previously, "truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive." We can say that the occurance, the subject of our inquisition, is not a concept. Therefore, the spirit-soul is not a concept. However, this would be to confuse the subject with the concept. We'll use God, and your discussion with JahBohl to further demonstrate this. In this discussion, you have employeed the term God and associated with it certain concepts to describe it's characteristics and nature. In one thread, you applied concepts of an "undefined and enigmatic" prime mover, and then in another submitted a much more definitive and exact concept of a personality.

Now in both instances you're describing the subject matter "God." In order for something to be "God" to you it has to fit certain criteria, or have certain characteristics. One characteristic of such is the Prime Mover. You then discuss this one attribute and define it to the best of your ability. There are also anthropomorphic qualities that are contained in this criteria, and now in this thread you discuss these personal attributes.

The term God then points to some subject that's involved in our existence. This subject is independant of the concepts we create surrounding it. We attempt to ascribe truth to our concepts, however our concepts will never be the subject itself, they're of different material. Therefore, they will never be the full, absolute truth, if they're related to something else. They're a shadow of the truth as the allegory goes. If you make them independant however, unrelated to anything else, then that can be ascribed an absolute truth regardless of how absurd it may sound. This would be the epitome of ignorance.

We have an experience of course that's provided to us in this existence. We observe that the provision of this experience is dependant on the body and it's conditioned. Damaged nerves for instance leads to a different supply of stimuli. We then modify the supply consciously by placing ourselves in the most ideal environments, such as on a yacht in the Caribbean surrounded by beautiful, naked, women. This would then naturally with minimal effort produces the enjoyable experiences we desire.

We can also alter our experience consciously by the various conceptual filters we can erect. These will serve to extract desired stimuli from otherwise undesirable material. The proverbial diamonds in the rough. Certain stimuli will be ignored in favour for others shinning a certain light on the situation. This is very popular in politics such as seen in A&P where we can ignore certain circumstances in favour of others to compel people to believe our conclusions. We get addicted and obsessed with these filters just as easily if not moreso than we do our material luxuries. The filters we employ becomes our approach to various subjects.

The major concept of spirit-soul in all it's detail and depth would act as one of these conceptual filters. Interacting with it would thus induldge or satisfy our false ego just as much as interacting with the naked women on the yacht would. By becoming celibate, devoting ourselves to Krishna, always having that enigmatic concept of "God" in our mind, perhaps choosing to live in a monastary or decorating our homes with culturally appropriate objects, we've assumed an approach to life that we've determined nets us the most value, the richest experience. Someone else could've initially constructed this configuration and then provided the blueprints for it in some tangible form such as writing, we could even go as far as to ascribe truth characteristics to it. This leads to the whole comforting beliefs, or using beliefs as a crutch type of perspective.

Truth when applied to concepts acts like mortar to bricks. It binds them together, solidifies, makes it concrete. This appeals to us, as we're used to interacting with concrete objects, such as my keyboard or the chair I'm sitting on. By applying truth to something it makes it more real to us. Brings it into and manifests it within our lives. We basically attempt to make our concept the subject and to erase doubt, fear, unknowing, and inexperience. It's doomed for failure, as mentioned before the concept will never BE the subject. So what happens is when other concepts approach the subject and describe it in a more compelling way, we have a very difficult time integrating any of it due to our solidification. You have to then "break down walls" in order to be able to. Dissolve previously held conceptions. Return to a more fluid, adaptive position, instead of throwing another brick in the wall. They all come crumbling down eventually.

On another note, the hand provides the stomach with pieces of itself. The hand is afterall food. It's constructed out of the material provided by food, and if eaten by a creature such as a lion would act as food. So, by providing the stomach with food, it's providing itself with food as well after the stomach digests it. So it's providing itself with itself in order to sustain itself. Now metaphorically if we carry this over to God: by providing God with pieces of myself I'd be serving him and he'd thus serve me. Therefore, simply being alive is doing a service to God, and being alive is a service from God to me. We'd be God, and God would be us, and everything else. So there isn't really a master or a servant, there isn't really a service, there isn't really seperation, it's just existence. It's all food: food for thought, food for life, food for existence.

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.