Spiritual practice, thought and freedom

This morning the waitress at the restaurant where I had breakfast asked me how I wanted my eggs. I asked that they be made over easy, and that was how I got them. I have had similar results when ordering steak a certain way, and when ordering a specific concoction at ice cream parlors. So maybe we do have some choice in how some things are made?

Very Eastern, very detached, cease striving, cease struggling, acceptance. Very unlike the Western notion of doing gods will in the world, struggling and suffering for social justice and righteousness.

And very fatalistic, since it supposes that what people do is ineffective. But is that true? It isn't as if we must accept this view of acceptance without wondering whether it is true. Is it? Is it immune from criticism?

How is the idea of killing a desire or controlling desire any way contradictory? please explain.

The desire of poet to write a good poem is a good desire.
The desire of a lecher to rape a young girl is bad.

What we are , what humans have acheived is because of the doings of desire. Wisdom lies in discriminating the right and the wrong; the positive and the negative.

Obviously as human beings we have normal wants and needs.

It is a meditation on impermanence. Of course this might seem a waste of time, but so could anything else one does.

Using a thorn to remove a thorn. We have the thorn of habituation embedded in the flesh. The thorn of spiritual practise is used to remove this thorn. When it is removed, both can be discarded.

(In most cases, this is some time away:-)

It really doesn't matter about 'some people' or 'most people' say. It only matters what you do. Speculation comes from looking for affirmation from others - 'what might they think?'. Keep the company of the wise - learn from them, and do what they do.

This morning the waitress at the restaurant where I had breakfast asked me how I wanted my eggs. I asked that they be made over easy, and that was how I got them. I have had similar results when ordering steak a certain way, and when ordering a specific concoction at ice cream parlors. So maybe we do have some choice in how some things are made?

So I understood, there is no need to seek happiness without, it is always within.

What is it that controls? Why dost thou need to control?

What is it that controls? Why dost thou need to control?

A perfect example of dualist thinking. What is thy citerion? Is it not because thou art conditioned to identify violence with bad and poetry with good. <Here I should direct thee to my thread "religion and what means...">

Just don't resist because there is no reason to resist."

Reasons for control.

1) A civilised man is civilised because he controls.

the will of yours that makes you controlled

2) A young boy in a civilised world doesnot go around shagging in the streets...
I frankly do not understand, whats conditioning to do with what is accepted behaviour, and unaccepted behaviour. Universal norms are social facts.

If there is no reason to resist, only a fool will resist.

Hi, Jack, let us look at thy post:

Who is that he which controls? Thine answer is

What is will. The word itself means "desire", "want". Now is it possible to have will without thought? Obviously not. Will means and ability of one desire to resist against others, the ability of one thought to withstand against others. Will is desire which is able to dominate over others, nothing more. Thus there is nothing noble and worthwhile because it is nothing but another form of desire

The reason why we control is our fear of punishment and desire for approval, nothing more. There is nothing noble with it, just a fear yet in a latent form.

It is all the work of the ego to preserve itself and avoid the absolute reality that it is only in its own complete abandonment that true liberation is possible, and that this is the meaning and the aim of any Sadhana that is worth considering. It is a tough row to hoe, and anyone who thinks the can just toss a few words out on an e-forum and bingo! there you are, is having himself on.

Dear me, [edited/deleted]. Kindly check some good dictionaries. Get the advance ones. Thats a request. I do agree, for those who have English as second language or third, it is quite funny sometimes.
Btw, do you read psychology. Just give it an attempt. While discussing spiritual practise, it is more related to mind than to anything else. I will give you some leads or keywords. : mind-control, self control, will-power.
The will we are talking about is a faculty of the mind.

Precisely, You have used the word 'control' here, to prove my point. Yet you wasted time in asking about that. Considering your first question, if i was to be rhetorical, than i would have asked, We control what or whom?
The answer you knew, and in this instance i know is 'ourselves'. Is this not obvious and was that not obvious? It is one thing to be argumentative, but it is a good efficient thing to be an intelligent argumentator. My other request is that do not use this forum like your cafetarisque tea and cake arguments.

Secondly, what ever the predicate (the reasons you throw up after the word 'is') is secondary to the discussion. The moot question is what controls. It is the Will (to expand for you, the Power of Will) of yours which controls you. The reasons per se (of course, secondary to the discussion) is a matter of psycho-sociological assessment. I do not want to go into those issues.

Now, coming back to the thread-issue, we should be more discussing why meditational practise and spiritual study or simply put, self-discipline is good for oneself. We should remmeber - If there's a Will, there's a way. Only if.

The master asked Nan-ch'uan (Nansen),' "What is the Way?"Nan-ch'uan said, "Ordinary mind is the Way."
The master said, "Then may I direct myself towards it or not?"Nan-ch'uan said, "To seek [it] is to deviate [from it]."
Untitled Document

I have just heard a couple of speakers at a conference on the topic of 'you are already realised, you are perfect as you are, everything you do will only interfere with your inherent internal perfection'. I actually don't know the correct word for this but am tossing up between 'bollocks' and 'heresy'. I think all such talk comes from an urbane fellow we all know, goatee beard, horns to match, if you catch my drift. It is all the work of the ego to preserve itself and avoid the absolute reality that it is only in its own complete abandonment that true liberation is possible, and that this is the meaning and the aim of any Sadhana that is worth considering. It is a tough row to hoe, and anyone who thinks the can just toss a few words out on an e-forum and bingo! there you are, is having himself on.

That's my two-shillings-worth.

---------- Post added 11-03-2009 at 02:11 PM ----------

I suppose what I wrote sounds flippant, so I should state it more seriously.

There is a lot of talk in spiritual and new-age circles about the so-called 'direct path', 'immediate realisation' and so on. There are precedents in the Eastern traditions for these ideas, notably Hui Neng, Sixth Zen Patriarch, and indeed the entire 'sudden realisation' school of traditional Zen.

There are also similar teachings and traditions in Advaita and various Buddhist schools. Then of course there is also the example and teaching of Krishnamurti and 'truth is a pathless land'. And no doubt, in my view, all such teachings contain a very important truth and speak from a profound principle.


But in my view, the fact the remains that insofar as I am 'a person' with a name and an address and worldly responsibilities and thoughts and dreams and all the rest of it, then the likelihood of all of that dropping away and revealing a pristine world of purity and enlightenment is pretty close to zero. This is why I have undertaken a commitment to the Buddhist discipline and regular sitting 'zazen'. Now of course there will always be those who say 'well what good does that do, you are only generating images out of desire' etc etc etc. Believe me, I have heard all the arguments. But in practise, there is work that has to be done. The mind will always find ways to preserve its habits and attachments, and seeing through these is a difficult and painful thing to do. Hence the need for communities of practise, going on retreat, observing the precepts and so on.

Of course it might be perfeclty true that at the end of all that we arrive at where we started, and so on. It might be perfectly true that we are 'already the Buddha nature'. But unless this is actualised, realised, made real, it doesn't actually mean anything. That is my sincere belief and I am certainly interested in sharing the idea with anyone who feels likewise. But be warned, I am very sceptical of most 'direct path' advocates, it is very much a symptom of the modern attitude that wants everything on its own terms, and straight away.

A monk asked, "What about it when I seek to be Buddha?"
The master said, "What a tremendous waste of energy."
The monk said, "What about it when I'm not wasting any energy?"
The master said, "In that case, you are Buddha."
A monk asked, "What is the practice of a sangha member?"
The Master said: "Leaving practice behind."
Untitled Document

maybe practice is the wrong word. it shouldnt be construed as a struggle. path is the way i think of it-and it hardly matters what path one takes, the destination is the same for all of us.

when this thread was started i dont think it was meant along the lines of rituals-spiritual disciplines or practices are more left to the imagination and can consist of indiscipline as well as anything else.

Destination is result, therefore when we practise we are actually craving for something, do we not? We are not satisfied with what is and seek what is not. True spirituality is exactly the end of any pursuit, the end of reliance on desires both noble and ignoble. When we have no desire for whatever we abide in the now, we don't have to suppress feelings, or run somewhere to by new trendy pair of shoes or so. WE JUST ARE. One-on-one with the now, with reality, with ourselves as we are, which is peace, Nirvana, religion, kaivalya etc. Therefore the word "destination" is absolutely alien to religion: I should like to recall again (pardon me, please:)) an old chan saying: "If you want to climb a mountain -- begin at the top!"


Well, that's not quite true. If I tell someone: "Don't practise", and he believes me, that won't be that thing I am referring to here. Practice must drop on its own accord, because of understanding of its nature just as every desire must drop. So long as there is no understanding, not-practice is indeed just another form of practice/desire.

The issue I raised is about practice per se. In this case the reasons to practise are also very important. But if thou dost not want to discuss them, it is thine own choice.

To appreciate every moment means not to struggle with it, not to wage the war with the reality. The reality is "I" with all my fears, lusts, bad habits, the reality is the world with its wars, money grabbing, deceit. So why dost thou not just observe that? If 'I' is as described above reality, why don't we enjoy that reality (if that's the result practice as thou hast stated somewhere).

There is a lot of talk in spiritual and new-age circles about the so-called 'direct path', 'immediate realisation' and so on. There are precedents in the Eastern traditions for these ideas, notably Hui Neng, Sixth Zen Patriarch, and indeed the entire 'sudden realisation' school of traditional Zen.

There are also similar teachings and traditions in Advaita and various Buddhist schools. Then of course there is also the example and teaching of Krishnamurti and 'truth is a pathless land'. And no doubt, in my view, all such teachings contain a very important truth and speak from a profound principle.

But in my view, the fact the remains that insofar as I am 'a person' with a name and an address and worldly responsibilities and thoughts and dreams and all the rest of it, then the likelihood of all of that dropping away and revealing a pristine world of purity and enlightenment is pretty close to zero. This is why I have undertaken a commitment to the Buddhist discipline and regular sitting 'zazen'. Now of course there will always be those who say 'well what good does that do, you are only generating images out of desire' etc etc etc. Believe me, I have heard all the arguments. But in practise, there is work that has to be done. The mind will always find ways to preserve its habits and attachments, and seeing through these is a difficult and painful thing to do. Hence the need for communities of practise, going on retreat, observing the precepts and so on.

Of course it might be perfeclty true that at the end of all that we arrive at where we started, and so on. It might be perfectly true that we are 'already the Buddha nature'. But unless this is actualised, realised, made real, it doesn't actually mean anything. That is my sincere belief and I am certainly interested in sharing the idea with anyone who feels likewise. But be warned, I am very sceptical of most 'direct path' advocates, it is very much a symptom of the modern attitude that wants everything on its own terms, and straight away.