Ascetism.

Post Reply New Topic

I read that ascetics live their lifestyle to end desire of all sorts. I wondered how this could work. So I came up with an idea.

When one is an ascetic, one must survive on the smallest amount of sustenance possible, and possible in a painful or difficult place/situation (an island, a blocked-up cave, atop a column, et cetera). Reducing the body's intake so much must influence the unconscious mind to enter a 'state of emergency' where the sole goal is to survive, overriding all other instincts, such as making babies, tasty food (not actually sure about that one though), fine possessions, et cetera. These desires are believed to be unsatable by many philosophers, and so ought to be destroyed instead.

Does this possibly make sense? Or is it just a matter of willpower?

The Buddha tried to eliminate desire by painful, extreme ascetic practices and nearly died in the process. After his enlightenment, he preached that such excesses were unprofitable as they did not lead the individual towards the goal of spiritual liberation. The asceticism he subsequently taught can probably be better defined as simple sufficiency – meaning enough to live on and not more. The objective is not to force the mind into a state of emergency but to give it just nourishment that it is free to attain greater consciousness but not so much that it is imprisoned by endless material desires.

I'm with the Buddha on this one. I've tried asceticism to limited degrees, and it was fun, but I'm not sure how much I got out of it.

This sounds about right. I want to be able to live like this eventually (the enlightened ascetism, not the first one).

The Desert Fathers were noted ascetics, and many of them had a very practical attitude, derived from a lot of experience with different models and an awareness that ours is a God of balance, of the knife edge not the right or the left [not political; talk here though it applies there too.]

I will not here attribute particular points nor excessively detail, but here are a couple:

The goal [there were of course exceptions, some people cannot help being extreme] was not to starve. Eat something each day - but stop before you are full. (That is harder than it sounds.)

Asceticism is relative - the wealthy Roman who gives up life in the seat of power for a cell in the desert is working to sleep on a camp cot and eat two meals a day; the shepherd who goes into the desert is much more comfortable sleeping on a straw mat and eating one meal a day than he was before he became an ascetic.

Don't show off. If someone comes to visit, you eat with him. Fast when only you and God are watching.

The goals vary. Often putting down the passions, often simply obedience with no clear goal in sight.

Ooh, I know that very well. I just failed to apply that at dinner. Dammit, French farmhouse loaf is bloody delicious.

Asceticism is not relative because equality before God is absolute. Man is still man regardless of his status or wealth.

Living simply is not about giving anything up but really about embracing reality. For instance, if you believe in the soul, then the flesh is simply the rotting packaging for this everlasting soul. People who believe in the existence of their soul should only feed their decaying bodies because this is required for life and only to the extent that life is sustained but would never do anything to compromise their soul. They ought turn away from all material desires and face God at every possible moment of their life. The minimum requirements for life are basically the same for every human being. The rejection of this temporal world is one of the key tenets of what Jesus taught. Incredibly, many churches today actually encourage their followers to drink more deeply from the cup of the world because apparently Jesus wants people to enjoy themselves.

Fifteen hundred calories a day and a liter of water will do just fine.

Let's all give up and become primitive. Then we won't need our computers anymore.

ruveyn

Why do we need our computers? There are many people in this world who have never touched a computer and they seem perfectly happy.

Desire is the only reason to perform any action. Very silly philosophy.



Not everyone is chasing happiness. Some people would rather be more than oxytocin-secreting cows.

Is the desire for happiness different from other desires?

Zeno:

"Asceticism is not relative because equality before God is absolute. Man is still man regardless of his status or wealth. "

You may say that and in one sense of course it is true.

But the God I know does NOT deal identically with each, though very evenhanded.

From each according to his gifts, his strength, his ability [yes, those are gifts too, I am precising not contrasting].

To each according to his needs [NOT what he thinks he desires].

Great theory - only God practices it.

Philologos:

It is silly to assert that you 'know' God because by you being man and God being God, you cannot possibly know him anymore than a protozoa can claim to know you.

Not really. If you want to achieve happiness through abstinence and rationing, be my guest. But it doesn't make sense to have eliminating desire as an end, because it is fundamentally impossible; desiring to destroy desire?

It is shortsighted to think what you don't get is necessarily silly. I do not want to get technical on "knowing" again - been there done that too recently in this forum:

Suffice it.

NO - I do not know by any working ALL definition ALL of anything, let alone God who [if there be anything to my perceptions] cannot fit into this universe enough to be perectly known even if we could comprehend the Universe which I say we cannot.

But I do know - in one or more of the senses discussed in my notes to the digital person - SOMETHING about many things in the universe, and a BIT about God..

Even a protozoan in my bloodstream might legitimately if intelligent claim to know something about my erythrocytes.

You do not have to desire it, though that could be difficult. In some philosophies, sating desire is impossible, so we cannot truly be happy. Rather, we should destroy the desires, and so, having everything (and by that I mean nothing or next-to-nothing) we want we will be happy. That is my reasoning anyway. What is the point of filling yourself up if you are going to get hungry again? Why get addicted to things? I have yet to find out what love is like (I want, but so far have not obtained) but I suspect it is a 'more more more' sort of thing.