human nature - inherently good or evil?

[seattlegal]

Here you go Loony. I've corrected your paper work.
Don't tell the Teacher I did so.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
human nature - inherently good or evil?

Good and evil revolve around "owner-ship Rights" ergo, the essence of the Ten conmandments.

Dang! That deserves a +1!

 

[Bhaktajan II]

I do not find this useful either, human nature is inherently what it is, it is not useful to decide for or against it because neither are going to effect anything. Either, in deciding for, you will justify indulgence, or deciding against, you will try to fight it. If you split it into aspects which are good and aspects which are bad, you are not an authentic person.

"that understanding which cannot distinguish between religion and irreligion, between action that should be done and action that should not be done, is in the mode of passion." Gita 18.31

Today's Assignment:
read the 16th Chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, Titled The Divine And Demoniac Natures

For example:
Gita 16.7:
"Those who are demoniac do not know what is to be done and what is not to be done. Neither cleanliness nor proper behavior nor truth is found in them."
http://vedabase.net/bg/16/7/en

Gita 16.8:
"They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in control. They say it is produced of sex desire and has no cause other than lust."

Oh! Krishna gives the whole low-down on this provacative subject, like no one else ---maybe because they were afraid to ask.

 

[Lunitik]

"that understanding which cannot distinguish between religion and irreligion, between action that should be done and action that should not be done, is in the mode of passion." Gita 18.31

Do you even know what religion is? It is what all action should be guided by, but you will not find it in the Gita, the Gita can merely point.

Today's Assignment:
read the 16th Chapter of the Bhagavad-gita

I have read the entirety of the Baghavad Gita, as well as many other books which comprise the Vedas...

Gita 16.7:
"Those who are demoniac do not know what is to be done and what is not to be done. Neither cleanliness nor proper behavior nor truth is found in them."

What is to be done is to trust God, what is not to be done is to lack trust.

Gita 16.8:
"They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in control. They say it is produced of sex desire and has no cause other than lust."

This is exactly what you have just said, that it is built of sex desire, that we are inherently lustful. Yet, God has created us with sex desire, he has made it something enjoyable, and so in repressing it you repress God. You are second guessing God's judgement because you are denying something he has provided.

Oh! Krishna gives the whole low-down on this provacative subject, like no one else ---maybe because they were afraid to ask.

Again I remind you that Krishna has had 1600 wives... what is the difference? Krishna has not been attached to any, he has not tried to possess any. He has simply accepted whatsoever existence has provided for him, he has simply danced with existence and embraced all that it offers - without clinging to any of it, while remaining as the witness only.

 

[Lunitik]

It is odd that "this world is unreal" is a common understanding of maya in English though...

It is not what is intended, this world is very real but we go on projecting things upon it. In those projections, we create an illusion, a dream world of sorts. This is what must be overcome, but you will be in the same world once it has been overcome - you will just see it raw, not with whatsoever you add.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Again I remind you that Krishna has had 1600 wives... what is the difference?

What difference different from what?

Krishna is God All-mighty.

You are not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Krishna has not been attached to any, he has not tried to possess any. He has simply accepted whatsoever existence has provided for him, he has simply danced with existence and embraced all that it offers - without clinging to any of it, while remaining as the witness only.

You have no authority to speak authoritatively about Krishna nor the Bhagavad-Gita ... yet you are even speaking about even more esoteric topics of Godhead . . . borne of concocted speculation to self-angrandise yourself.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In the Padma Purāṇa, the characteristics of the guru, the bona fide spiritual master, have been described:

The guru must be situated on the topmost platform of devotional service. There are three classes of devotees, and the guru must be accepted from the topmost class. The first-class devotee is the spiritual master for all kinds of people. It is said, gurur nṛṇām. The word nṛṇām means "of all human beings." The guru is not limited to a particular group. A guru is a gosvāmī, a controller of the senses and the mind. Such a guru can accept disciples from all over the world.

"Although one may be born in a śūdra family, if he is endowed with the brahminical qualities, beginning with śama [control of the mind], he is to be accepted as a brāhmaṇa. Although one may be born in a brāhmaṇa family, if he is endowed with the qualities beginning with kāma [lust], he is to be considered a śūdra." No one should present himself as a brāhmaṇa simply on the basis of being born in a brahminical family. One must be qualified by the brahminical qualities mentioned in the śāstras, particularly the Bhagavad-gītā (18.42).



http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/24/330/

 

[Lunitik]

What difference different from what?

Krishna is God All-mighty.

You are not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So for him, it is fine, but for lowly humans it is to be avoided at all cost?

You have no authority to speak authoritatively about Krishna nor the Bhagavad-Gita ... yet you are even speaking about even more esoteric topics of Godhead . . . borne of concocted speculation to self-angrandise yourself.

Yet Chaitanya Mahaprabhu does? On what basis?

Whatsoever I say is based on experience, it is the difference between us, your statements are based on knowledge, scholarship, mine are based on knowing, direct experience.

 

[Etu Malku]

Do you even know what religion is? It is what all action should be guided by . . .

Bah, religion is just a byproduct of normal psychological disposition, it functions as a meme, it can provide comfort and consolation to those adherent to their particular religion. It fosters togetherness and satisfies our yearning to understand why we exist.

It is certainly not what all our actions should be guided by.

 

[Lunitik]

Bah, religion is just a byproduct of normal psychological disposition, it functions as a meme, it can provide comfort and consolation to those adherent to their particular religion. It fosters togetherness and satisfies our yearning to understand why we exist.

It is certainly not what all our actions should be guided by.

You have described organized religion, certainly, although still I say it points to something very very real.

At the same time, I am asking him the etymology of the word, it means to re-bind. It is what each scripture actually teaches, it is the very purpose of all faiths, you are merely deciding which path to follow if you decide on a faith. It simply describes a particular experience of it, but emulation will not do, you must find your own authentic and individualized path.

Existence does not create carbon copies, always there is a uniqueness!

 

[Bhaktajan II]

The Lost Credos:

Bah, MONEY is just a byproduct of normal psychological disposition, MONEY functions as a meme, MONEY can provide comfort and consolation to those adherent to their particular MONEY CURRENCY. MONEY fosters togetherness and satisfies our yearning to understand why we exist.

MONEY is certainly not what all our actions should be guided by.

and/or

Bah, MY GENITALS are just a byproduct of normal psychological disposition, MY GENITALS function as a meme, MY GENITALS can provide comfort and consolation to those adherent to their particular GENITALS. MY GENITALS fosters togetherness and satisfies our yearning to understand why we exist.

MY GENITALS are certainly not what all our actions should be guided by.

Now that's Universally profound!

 

[Lunitik]

When we have found That, it is exactly what our actions should be based on... what is for the whole and what is against it? It can differ from situation to situation, for instance lying to protect feelings and lying to get away with something, or killing for gain and killing for self defense, but always it is the guide.

I do not say that religious laws should be followed, they are too much black and white, but the ultimate religious law comprises everything. It is the ramifications of the realization of oneness.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

A True Individual wears the same mask everywhere they are.

I do not agree, I did when I was a kid because everyone said so, but I don't find it true now. It might be the definition of 'mask' but I find that when I interact with someone for the first time I am very reserved until I've figured out how the person works (at some basic level) and how our relationship will be. I can be somewhat different with everyone I know, the way I communicate fits the circumstances to serve the purpose of the relationship.
As long as I'm honest with myself I consider myself a True Individual.

 

[Lunitik]

Now that's Universally profound!

You make quite bizarre leaps, you should try to avoid that...

He is far more general than these two statements, he is fixated on ego - and yes, money and sex boost ego if you become identified with them, certainly - but again you are over-simplifying.

You actually represent your own obsessions, just in the negative direction. Repression is just as bad as indulgence, both are an illness. Think of Krishna's directions towards Arjuna on the battle field. Arjuna would be declared a saint in most religions, yet Krishna is speaking of the stupidity in his objections to fighting. What are his basic grounds? It is that Arjuna believes after physical death he will cease, others will cease if he kills them, and Krishna says this is absurd. Existence is merely a play, and this is the part your character is playing now. Embrace it, enjoy it, and know it is not you which is experiencing it...

You are something else, you are the witness of the experience, he says to remain distanced from all that happens in this world. Etu is utterly caught up in it...

 

[Lunitik]

As long as I'm honest with myself I consider myself a True Individual.

You are not being honest with yourself though, you are allowing the other to affect your honesty. Why be guarded against the other? You are simply trying to protect yourself, you are unwilling to love, to reach out to another and risk pain.

You are correct, it is an example of what is described as the "mask".

 

[Bhaktajan II]

You make quite bizarre leaps, . . . again you are over-simplifying.

Lunitik,

You are free to post your thoughts.

I rather you desist from doing so.

There are components of your utterences that are correctly cited.

Yet, I recognise you as legally insane.

I do see your posts as insanely desperate.

I do not here mean to demean you but to tell you what I precieve via your posts ---I want you to know un-equivically how I feel.

Calling a spade a spade,
Bhaktajan

 

[luecy7]

Meditation is the art of residing in the witness. You can be at a party, in the middle of a packed dance floor dancing with 3 girls at the same time, and still be meditating. You simply have NO understanding of meditation AT ALL, so please shut up about it.

In my view, as you use the word it is still a solo exercise. I can replace the word 'meditation' with the words 'doing drugs', or 'thinking sex'. You can do drugs in the middle of a packed dance floor, dancing with 3 girls at the same time, and I would still consider it a solo exercise. The dancing is the only part there that is not solo.

On a planet all by yourself, you could still meditate. If a person considers a word like love to be something that they could do on a planet all by themselves, then I think they have equally missed the point. A person can use the word 'love' to describe what they themselves like, admire, appreciate, or desire, instead of using the word to mean loving someone. For example: It is possible to love someone that you don't even love (like, admire, appreciate, desire). If love is a solo exercise to a person, or a feeling, then I will likewise renounce it as a solo exercise. The same goes for faith, trust, honesty, confessing, forgiving, patience... viewed and done correctly, in my opinion, these are not really solo exercises.

You keep bringing up the Golden Rule though, how exactly is your closed attitude to meditation compliant with it? What do you even think is the purpose of religion, of faith? You are wasting your own time and mine, that is all I see.

I think the purpose of religion is often established and twisted by whomever is telling it, and then twisted by whomever is receiving it. You have said that the purpose is to re-legion, and to re-bind people. Perhaps, but I'd say only as individuals engage willingly.

Your title claims "conscientious objector", you are nothing of the sort, you are a closed minded fool, nothing more.

You seem frustrated that I disagree with you. You have my permission to call me whatever you wish, especially if you think it is true. Since you have routinely spoken against using the mind, and recommend essentially closing it via meditation, I am not sure whether this is a complement, or that you would instead prefer that I actually use my mind, and even have it open to reviewing your viewpoint. I have appreciated reading and thinking about your viewpoint.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

You are not being honest with yourself though, you are allowing the other to affect your honesty. Why be guarded against the other? You are simply trying to protect yourself, you are unwilling to love, to reach out to another and risk pain.

You are correct, it is an example of what is described as the "mask".

You are making assumptions, but I don't want to get into that with you.

 

[IowaGuy]

most people wear a different mask for each engagement, one at home, one at work, one with close friends, one for strangers, one when alone, one in public, etc.

Isn't this just part of tailoring your communication to fit your target audience?

As most communication is nonverbal, of course we should "wear a different mask" depending on our circumstance and who we're dealing with.

I, for example, wear a different mask if I'm making a presentation to a School Board or a Rotary Club than if I'm lounging at home or camping with my daughter. Sweat pants and unshaven don't go so well in a professional setting, yet I would never dream of shaving or wearing a watch during a camping trip.

Even Buddha tailored his message to fit his particular audience. Do you not think he "wore a different mask" depending on who he was dealing with?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

What IG said.

 

[Etu Malku]

Isn't this just part of tailoring your communication to fit your target audience?

As most communication is nonverbal, of course we should "wear a different mask" depending on our circumstance and who we're dealing with.

I, for example, wear a different mask if I'm making a presentation to a School Board or a Rotary Club than if I'm lounging at home or camping with my daughter. Sweat pants and unshaven don't go so well in a professional setting, yet I would never dream of shaving or wearing a watch during a camping trip.

Even Buddha tailored his message to fit his particular audience. Do you not think he "wore a different mask" depending on who he was dealing with?

My fault for not really defining the "mask" (as usual )

The Mask i.e. 'adopted attitude' is also the persona.
As a Luciferian, I am greatly interested in Individualism and not wearing a mask.

The person that is not an individual is a collective, the plaything of circumstance and expectation. Were he individual, he would have the same character despite the variation of attitude, not identical with the attitude of the moment, of which is a deception to others and to himself (as to his real character). so, he puts on a Mask. This mask, he knows, is in keeping with his conscious intentions, and also meets the requirements and opinions of society.

 

[Lunitik]

Lunitik,

You are free to post your thoughts.

I rather you desist from doing so.

There are components of your utterences that are correctly cited.

Yet, I recognise you as legally insane.

I do see your posts as insanely desperate.

I do not here mean to demean you but to tell you what I precieve via your posts ---I want you to know un-equivically how I feel.

Calling a spade a spade,
Bhaktajan

This is why you will not reach in this life.