Its stated that all desire is suffering which I am begining to understand, however when contemplating desire I begin to see it as a double edged sword and become confused.
I want to rid my self of bad habbits as the teachings suggests. Yet I find that I have a strong desire to do so. Theres a craving to have this or to do that which is a desire and at the same time theres and equal desire to stop the craving. I realize the teachings tell us not to crave nor to avoid and to discriminate. However a find in the process there can be a strong desire to discriminate. How does one reconcile this? Further more If I want to dedicate my life to help others for the purpose of compassion and to free others from suffering is that not a desire?
I want to rid my self of bad habbits as the teachings suggests. Yet I find that I have a strong desire to do so. Theres a craving to have this or to do that which is a desire and at the same time theres and equal desire to stop the craving. I realize the teachings tell us not to crave nor to avoid and to discriminate. However a find in the process there can be a strong desire to discriminate. How does one reconcile this? Further more If I want to dedicate my life to help others for the purpose of compassion and to free others from suffering is that not a desire?
Accepted Answer
The only way to resolve these questions is through long and patient meditation. The intellect can never understand these questions or arrive at their answers. Only the consciousness can: and yet, observe how few people have! So, study those who have resolved the questions, and follow their example: Jesus, Buddha, etc.
Indeed, the humanoid does not have a permanent “I,” but instead he has a multitude of different infra-human and absurd “I’s.”
The wretched intellectual animal mistakenly called a human being is similar to a house in disorder where instead of one lord, there are many servants who always want to command and to perform their own whims.
The greatest error of cheap pseudo- esotericism and pseudo-occultism is to assume that others possess or that one has a permanent and immutable “I,” with- out a beginning and an end...
If for at least one instant those who think in the way previously described were to awaken consciousness, they would then clearly see for themselves that the rational humanoid is never the same “one” through a long period of time...
Thus, from a psychological point of view, the intellectual mammal is continuously changing...
To think that a person named Louis is always Louis is like a joke made in very bad taste...
That subject called Louis has other “I’s,” other “egos” in himself, who, in different moments, express themselves through his personality. Therefore, even if Louis does not like covetousness, another “I” within him, let’s call him Peter, likes covetousness, and so on...
No person is the same in a continuous manner. Indeed, one does not have to be a sage in order to fully realize the innumer- able changes and contradictions of each individual...
Therefore, to assume that someone possesses a permanent and immutable “I” is equivalent to committing an abuse against our fellowmen and against oneself...
Thus, many people, many “I’s,” live inside each person.
"Do not worry; cultivate the habit of being happy." - Samael Aun Weor
Accepted Answer
The only way to resolve these questions is through long and patient meditation. The intellect can never understand these questions or arrive at their answers. Only the consciousness can: and yet, observe how few people have! So, study those who have resolved the questions, and follow their example: Jesus, Buddha, etc.
Indeed, the humanoid does not have a permanent “I,” but instead he has a multitude of different infra-human and absurd “I’s.”
The wretched intellectual animal mistakenly called a human being is similar to a house in disorder where instead of one lord, there are many servants who always want to command and to perform their own whims.
The greatest error of cheap pseudo- esotericism and pseudo-occultism is to assume that others possess or that one has a permanent and immutable “I,” with- out a beginning and an end...
If for at least one instant those who think in the way previously described were to awaken consciousness, they would then clearly see for themselves that the rational humanoid is never the same “one” through a long period of time...
Thus, from a psychological point of view, the intellectual mammal is continuously changing...
To think that a person named Louis is always Louis is like a joke made in very bad taste...
That subject called Louis has other “I’s,” other “egos” in himself, who, in different moments, express themselves through his personality. Therefore, even if Louis does not like covetousness, another “I” within him, let’s call him Peter, likes covetousness, and so on...
No person is the same in a continuous manner. Indeed, one does not have to be a sage in order to fully realize the innumer- able changes and contradictions of each individual...
Therefore, to assume that someone possesses a permanent and immutable “I” is equivalent to committing an abuse against our fellowmen and against oneself...
Thus, many people, many “I’s,” live inside each person.
"Do not worry; cultivate the habit of being happy." - Samael Aun Weor
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Books
-
Books for Prisons
