Why strive for anything spiritually?

I don't eat meat, I don't drink alcohol , I don't smoke cigarettes , or anything of that sort, but I don't see any point in "not doing" these things anymore.

I don't know why, but I think attachment is the real problem. This is what causes real suffering. The fact that we are attached to our petty lives- not smoking, or smoking, nor drinking alcohol or drinking alcohol etc...

I think this is also the problem with people who hold back on doing things they really want to do, because they feel insecure that they might fail, this attachment to the result causes suffering.

Attachment to self, Attachment to notions that I claim to be what "I am"/ notions that you claim to be what "you are". Attachment to even a spiritual goal causes suffering. I think that even if we strive spiritually to attain some goal, we should not be attached to that goal for we may never reach it, same with ideals, same with notions of heroism or any humanitarian notion.

If you say "well, through striving for something you attain it", well maybe thats true, but striving is not the problem, the attachment is. but the question comes up as to , how can one strive while remaining wholely detached to the act of striving?

 

I think you've hit on some good stuff here - I've never really thought of being attached to "not drinking" or "not smoking" before, but that's a brilliant point... if you become obsessed with your own purity, then you're just attaching again!

I also agree that there is a fine line between striving and attachment. Example: if I am single, and my goal is to eventually marry, there is a minimum level of effort that must be exerted, even if the effort is simply accepting the proposal of a partner. You have to either talk to girls, ask them out, or if they ask you out, you at least have to "strive" enough to accept the invitation, etc. If you just sit in a cave and "detach," it won't happen.

This is a problem I've seen addressed in lots of Buddhist literature, and all that I have read says something like, "Now, I have just gotten done explaining that your ultimate goal is to completely detach and do nothing. But this does not mean to literally do nothing! This does not mean to literally sit in a cave!" So what I think this is pointing to is that it's hard to accomplish anything if one doesn't have goals to some extent. I couldn't attain enlightenment if I didn't have that as a goal, because I never would've picked up a book about Buddhism, I never would've tried meditating, because the idea wouldn't have even been in my mind. So to this extent we must strive. However, it's the clinging, the NEEDINESS that is the bad thing. One can have spiritual enlightenment as a goal, but as soon as one LUSTS for it, as soon as one begins to desire for it, then it becomes a crutch. Then you begin to associate happiness with that thing, and then you're screwed, because you aren't looking inside, you're looking outside to something else. So yes it's a fine line... if you want to be a musician, you have to buy a guitar. You have to act towards your goal. But, you do so without that lusty attachment that plagues the lives of so many and can only distract us from our goals (back to my previous example, I know that as soon as I begin wanting a certain girl, then I am assured of screwing up, because with desire comes pressure, anxiety, fear of failure, etc. - but a topic for another thread)

 

Well reasoned analysis from both members.

 

This is a good question, dearest Jedi. I don't know. Perhaps it goes deeper... like doing these things because you want to do them... you know? Or even losing interest in smoking, drinking, meat, ect... because you have other things that are forefront on your mind.

So, is it better to spiritually submit yourself? You know... lay everything you are and have before the Ultimate ... just love and let all the little things that trip you up fall away on their own?

Please let me know if I am way off track.

 

Would you be talking about the Adwaita Vedanta of Sri Ramakrishna, and his followers? I love him and have his "Gospel" in several editions. I also love the Jewish and Christian mystics, and the Sufis (hence my name) of Islam. I'm very eclectic and have studied Vedanta since I was about 11 (50 years ago!!!). I'm right now on the "fringes," and into existentialism, but never give up my search for spiritual truth and beauty. I love to read Kabir, too. "Self-Consciousness" or "Cosmic Consciousness" is/has-to-be the only real reason for anything at all, but I am apophatic (believe that NOTHING can be known about God even if He does exist). Anyway, Brother, welcome and Salaam!

 

This is the problem here, how do you act toward the goal of your enlightenment without being bound your own lust for this result? Where is this point where you are free from the slavery to your lethargy as well as fre from slavery to your desires, where is the middlepoint?.

 

actually i know almost 0% about advaita vedanta, I am a SriVaishnava, but I still want to ponder this question as to how we act in karma yoga.

 

I think you just answered my question. I was going to ask something else , but then this made perfect sense.

It has to do with the fact that you won't care, when we submit to the lord, you engage in spontaneous action that is not based on any desire- even the desire to not have desire. It is not even made up by desire to fulfill or please the lord. It is in that innocence and through spontaneous action , Sriman Narayana Himself will take care of us.
Oh my god, Thank you!.

 

maybe the point is that we should continue to strive for better, and nirvana/enlightenment/whatever is reached after death... when we are free from physical chains and questions

 

yeah that does make a lot of sense... looks like i'm headed in teh right direction then, ha...

 

Some great discussion going on guys. I see now I should've also mentioned in my first post that as far as not drinking goes, there is moral issue as well. It unequivocally damages the brain, it is an intoxicant which means it clouds your judgment, and considering your mind is your most precious asset, it's best to avoid tampering with it. So there's your other big reason for not pursuing too much sensual pleasure - it tends to be damaging to the body and/or mind. And absolutely the follow up post by Savage Garden saying that other things occupy your mind is spot on. If you're really enlightened, you just don't care about drinking. I mean, I guess you could go to the store and buy some beer, but why? If you're around it a lot, maybe have one with the guys or whatever, but there's just kind of a "why" factor. Feeling a little woozy and a little light headed just isn't fulfilling after a while.

As for accepting one's current desires or fighting against them, a seeker must fight his/her desires to some extent, I think, to extinguish them. But you don't try too hard, you don't make a big deal out of it. As Ram Dass so eloquently puts it, you don't rip off the skin of a snake, it just comes off. You don't try to blast your way through your desires, guns-a-blazin'... However, it doesn't help if you're clinging to the skin Now this is a situation where moderation and simply feeling your way along is crucial. For instance, I still smoke grass about once a week, but I am essentially rid of attachment to it because I'm not doing it regularly enough for it to become a real addiction. For instance, I'm not thinking about it all the time. If I just gave in, I'd be smoking daily. If I'm smoking daily, you can bet I'm thinking about pot a lot even when not engaged in smoking, and that's just a waste of time, and it's an awfully severe attachment. But at the same time, I was (somewhat) addicted to pot for a good reason: because I liked it, and it is something I enjoy. So I'm not going cold turkey. It would just suck too bad to think I'd never smoke again, or not for many months. In fact, I doubt I will ever completely cease use. Hopefully I will still be toking every once in a while even when I'm old and wrinkly Smoking once a week really isn't a problem for me at this stage of my life. You just kind of "know" when something is acceptable, and when it isn't. The inner moral barometer is key.

I think it boils down to the fact that people only lust after things that are gratifying... gratifying to the senses, such as drugs and sex, or gratifying to the ego, such as success or money... gratifying to the emotions, such as endless thrillseeking or whatever... and the trick about enlightenment is that even though it's the best satisfaction a human can ever have, it is only a satisfaction with being dissatisfied. The Buddha said that life entails disatisfaction... it's the first noble truth. So, there's really no need to lust after enlightenment, because in some ways, it doesn't help you at all! In other ways, of course, it takes you to unimaginable heights. It's very paradoxical. Basically, it's hard to lust after "just being" because the "just" part brings you right back down to earth... everything is "just" this or "just" that and you get the big cosmic joke and you realize you were enlightened already But I'm getting way ahead of myself now...

 

Oh don't thank me silly boy... everything I learned ...I learned from you all... and even this sometimes I don't understand...so perhaps I should be thanking you instead.

 

I disagree Stayloose1011, you are still attached because you have to smoke grass once every week and without this, you will lose balance in your life. The person who is detached is self satisfied, although he acts, he is not attached, there is a difference.

Well , I guess we thank the divine lord in us all, he is the one who guides us and destroys doubt within. I don't believe it was anyone here or anyone outside of this place that made you the person you are right now, it is the grace of the Supreme Lord himself. I thank him

 

::nods:: Ditto.

"Make my soul Thy temple! Make my heart Thine altar! Make my love Thy home! May Thy love shine forever on the sanctuary of my devotion and may I be able to awaken Thy love in all hearts"- "Prayer of my heart"- Paramahansa Yogananda; Whispers from Eternity

 

I'm honestly not sure if I'm still attached or not. If I am still attached to it, it's one of the few things I'm still attached to. But just because you do something doesn't mean you're attached to it. You're supposed to detach from everything, even eating, and your own thoughts. You still eat, you just aren't attached to it. These days, if my dealer is unavailable and I can't get any weed, it's no big deal, so I think I'm well on my way to ridding myself of the attachment.

 

I believe by striving , one should have the goal of salvation in mind, without being attached to that as well.

Hold the goal in mind, without being attached to it, and conduct your life according to it.

Understand that through daily practice of yoga, you can reach salvation.
If the means is perfected, the ends will come on its own automatically. We do not need to be bothered about it. So if we do our yoga properly ,which is the means, we don't need to be concerned about the ends, which is salvation. It will come automatically on its own.

So I believe one ought to live in the present moment, and do your duties without being attached to it ( as taught by Krishna).

This is also the Zen method, and taught by the Buddha as well.

 

Seems to me there are two issues here - attachment, and desire.

There is a short piece by William Blake which I like and which summarizes in a way my own feelings about all this:

"He who binds himself to a joy
doth the winged life destroy.

But he who catches a joy as it flies
lives in Eternity's sunrise"

I think the implication is that the free person whose pleasure is in pure being accepts transitory pleasure as and when it comes, but doesn't get attached to it in any particular form, and thus doesn't suffer when the pleasure is withdrawn.

That said, I have to say that I personally make no claim to be non-attached, because I know well that there are many things to which I am attached. So long as I am alive in this current body, I doubt that will change.
I also know however, that nothing here is eternal, nothing is guarunteed.
So there is also a part of me which knows when to let go. Perhaps that is a deeper aspect of my self which oversees the day to day attchment of the outward ego and persona....

Anyway, I'm rambling here. The thing is that it is just as easy to get attached to 'virtue' as it is to 'vice'.
Feelings of moral self-righteousness etc are one symptom of this.
Also, Jedi - you say that a person who uses cannabis is attached and if they stop, the balance will be lost - but isn't the same thing true of religious observance and spiritual practice? If a person relies on that, and gets attached, if for some reason they were unable to continue, wouldn't they suffer a similar fate?

I'm not sure that total non-attachment is a realistic possibility for the human being. At least, other that in some special trance type state, from which one would eventually emerge back into the world of attachments.
Just the mechanisms of life seem to preclude it. How for example, can a parent be non-attached to their child and it's fate? To be so would to be less than human - not some superhuman achievement.
How can you love someone and not be attached to both them and the feeling of love?

Some say to this - ok, so there are good and bad attachments - for instance being attached to doing constant prayer might be said by some to be a positive attachment.
But still, it is an attachment to a particular form of activity.

I think it is good to be attached to some things, bad to be attached to others. This varies from person to person, but in general, being attached to the welfare of other beings and the universe is a good attachment.
Being attached to an attitude of fearlesness and a desire to cling to the positive is good.

It's the same with desires - it varies for each person which desires it is ok to fulfill and which ones have to be kept under control. It even varies for the same person within one lifetime.
In my case for instance, when I was married, although I used to notice other women I used to tell myself that this desire was not good. And as a married man back then with a child, that was the right attitude for a responsible person to take. (I did actually give in to temptation once in this department, and it caused me troubles which still pesist now many years later).
Now, however, I am no longer married, and so if I find I am attracted to a woman, it seems perfectly legitimate for me to pursue this, knowing well, as I do, all the viscisitudes involved in relationships.:H

Money, status, power etc are usually negative attachments. Addiction to 'cheap thrills' in whatever form is usually bad. But one can't generalize even here. What looks like cheap thrills to one person may have some deep significance for another -

 

According to Vivekananda there is nothing wrong in enjoying life or attachments.


The problem arises when we become inordinately attached to the sources of happiness or pleasures. This results in our becoming slaves to these sources of pleasures and their absence would result in our misery and pain.

As Vivekananda himself stated ,"All objective pleasures results in pain and misery in the long run."

As far as Vivekananda is concerned , the trick is to develop ones powers of concentration or attachment and detachment through yoga or self-discipline.

As Vivekananda said , " The true man is he who has developed his powers of concentration (attachment) and detachment. He will be able to attach to a thing with all his heart or soul and get the best out of it, and at the same he will be able to detach himself at will.
Such a man will be able to get the best out of nature."

Hence one will be able to enjoy life, and at the same time, due to his powers of detachment will be immune to the snares of maya and the material world and will be free of all addictions.

In fact according to Vivekananda , only such a person can live effectively and happily in this world.

I have also stated that Krishna , while he enjoyed life and had fun, at the same time was in a state of non-attachment.Though he enjoyed life and its pleasures, he was not at all attached to the sources of these pleasures. And it should be understood that uncontrolled attachment to sensory pleasures is what is detrimental to spirituality or the cultivation of a spiritual life.

As Guru Govind Singh of the Sikh religion himself said, " My Sikhs will enjoy the pleasures of the world, and at the same time they will be detached from it. "

This is hard , I understand. But this is also conditional love, where you expect something in return from your child or loved ones, in the form of love , happiness and pleasure, failing which you will be unhappy and sad.

In total unconditional love , you don't care whether your loved ones love you or not, but you go on loving them for the sake of love, and making them happy. Attachment is conditional love, which means you expect something in return from your loved ones, and I think it is a slavery of sorts,not real love.

In unconditional love , or in the state of non-attachment, you are not hurt or disturbed if you do not get love and pleasure from your loved ones. If you do get love and happiness , you enjoy it, without being attached to it.

And I believe this is the peak of manhood, where one is not affected by anything and loves all unconditionally. And I believe this is pure love as well.

 

When I speak of love, I'm speaking from a kind of existential here and now point of view - ordinary life.
It doesn't actually seem much like slavey to me to love one's children, it is a deep and even an instinctive function. A parent with an extremely dismal attitude to parenting may love their child only if it does well and pleases the parent - but in reality, parental love is much deeper than that. It is perhaps closer to 'un-conditional love' than any othe form of human love.
To use on's offspring as a kind of proxy source of happiness is also an abberation.

A person who is unable to love their children in this way is extremely unlikely to move onto feel love for all.

Same when you have kids. If they misbehave you don't cease to love them.

I doubt such a state is possible other than for a stone statue - to be un affected by anything. It is actually impossible. The entirety of what one is encompasses the body and a range of subtle energy fields where continual change is taking place leading to definite effects.
Even if I become utterly indifferent to food, if I cease to eat for long enough I will be affected in that I will die, and that will be the end of the present organization.

Also, I'm sorry but I have to say that the term 'manhood' is perhaps a bit outmoded these days, and no doubt my femminist friends would be offended by it's use. It is a bit victorian in tone - lets say 'humanity'. I know I 'll be accused of PC here, but it is important to get away from the sexist cultures of the past.

 

Although it's going off topic a bit, I'd like to mention here something from Timothy Leary's 'Politics of Ecstacy' which has stayed in my mind for more than 30 years now since I read it, and which has serious implications for the Indian system of masters.

Leary said that 'only those who have lived through 2 seed cycles should be given power'
What did he mean? He meant only when you have grown up yourself and sucessfully seen you own children grow up, can you be trusted to have any kind of realistic handle on life or reality.
Those who remain celibate, refusing to fully enter into the life stream can't possibly understand love, or be trusted to guide us.

I think there may be something in this.