Even though our body is a limitation and a boundary to our soul, but one should keep in mind, that this body is not as weak as someone may think, and one's mind have total control above it. That is to say that if on's body sent information that it's hungry, the brain can forcefully make it hold and it would but not forever. Besides these limitation is what make think of ourselves even more.
There's a few ways to interpret 'strength' based on this one example! I guess the idea is to appreciate each aspect of our human constitution (spirit, mind, emotions and body) for what it can do. Should the body be considered "strong" because it can withstand (with or without pain) the conditions imposed by the mind? Is it not the purpose of the body to be tamed so that one can bask in near-total spiritual awareness? I would agree that the body can indeed be a very flexible tool, and that its main purpose is to a receptacle and an interpreter of external stimuli - sources of inspiration and experiences which also lead to spiritual growth... ... For some reason, this reminds me that there have been accounts of people who have not been eating for years without any major health problems. Needless to say, they are rare exceptions to the rules of survival! Imagine: The control of hunger is no longer an issue for these people; this seemingly vital need appeared to have vanished. It's a feat of incredibly low and deliberate energy consumption, restorative powers, and (bear with me!) a proof that energy can be gained by metaphysical means and exploited in the physical realm. Anyways - as usual, I digress.
Both words you used arepure philosophical words, and this triggers two questions though irrelevant to the topic; Are you studying philosophy offically(in school, university, ...etc) or personally(from the internet, books, ...etc.), the second question is, from what philosophy are these words? (Of course my prediction can be totally wrong, since the may be just words that are learnt in a certain point of your life.)
I have been a member of the New Acropolis for a little over a year now. Needless to say, I have much to learn still! I have chosen this school because although we do have intellectual discussions during classes, our sessions are never an act of 'mental masturbation'; a term that I would deem more suitable for the typical philosophy courses given in universities. The (carefully chosen) masters of the Acropolis focus not on cramming knowledge into our heads; instead, they spend a lot of time and effort making the knowledge of ancient civilizations very personal to us, so that we can learn to act and react to everyday life situations with complete control of our mind, body and spirit. The overall goal of this exercise for self-control is to elevate us to a point where we are stable enough to build a better world around us. "Philosophy in action" is one of their favorite mottos, and I must say I love it as well... it closes a very constructive circle between the spirit, the mind, the emotions and the body. The New Acropolis' Principles page is a good summary of the organization's goals. As for Manas & Kama Manas, these are Sanskrit words which have taken their roots in Hinduism. The Hindus have a way of referring to the body as a vehicle that takes the spirit where it needs to go, rather than a shell that is supposed to portray the boundaries of who we are. Although the Acropolis usually mentions it is free of any religious bias, one of the reasons it uses the original Sanskrit terms in their teachings on the human constitution is because the Sanskrit terms are more faithful representations of the concepts taught to the students/disciples. These terms are more precise and less wordy than the translations we make of them using the English language (as you can notice based on my own translations!).
My body must go to bed now (...!), but I will make an attempt to reply to the second part of your comment eventually...! Sorry for any typos or any sentences that don't make much sense!
Even though our body is a limitation and a boundary to our soul, but one should keep in mind, that this body is not as weak as someone may think, and one's mind have total control above it. That is to say that if on's body sent information that it's hungry, the brain can forcefully make it hold and it would but not forever. Besides these limitation is what make think of ourselves even more.
There's a few ways to interpret 'strength' based on this one example!
I guess the idea is to appreciate each aspect of our human constitution (spirit, mind, emotions and body) for what it can do.
Should the body be considered "strong" because it can withstand (with or without pain) the conditions imposed by the mind? Is it not the purpose of the body to be tamed so that one can bask in near-total spiritual awareness?
I would agree that the body can indeed be a very flexible tool, and that its main purpose is to a receptacle and an interpreter of external stimuli - sources of inspiration and experiences which also lead to spiritual growth...
... For some reason, this reminds me that there have been accounts of people who have not been eating for years without any major health problems. Needless to say, they are rare exceptions to the rules of survival!
Imagine: The control of hunger is no longer an issue for these people; this seemingly vital need appeared to have vanished. It's a feat of incredibly low and deliberate energy consumption, restorative powers, and (bear with me!) a proof that energy can be gained by metaphysical means and exploited in the physical realm.
Anyways - as usual, I digress.
Both words you used arepure philosophical words, and this triggers two questions though irrelevant to the topic; Are you studying philosophy offically(in school, university, ...etc) or personally(from the internet, books, ...etc.), the second question is, from what philosophy are these words? (Of course my prediction can be totally wrong, since the may be just words that are learnt in a certain point of your life.)
I have been a member of the New Acropolis for a little over a year now. Needless to say, I have much to learn still!
I have chosen this school because although we do have intellectual discussions during classes, our sessions are never an act of 'mental masturbation'; a term that I would deem more suitable for the typical philosophy courses given in universities.
The (carefully chosen) masters of the Acropolis focus not on cramming knowledge into our heads; instead, they spend a lot of time and effort making the knowledge of ancient civilizations very personal to us, so that we can learn to act and react to everyday life situations with complete control of our mind, body and spirit.
The overall goal of this exercise for self-control is to elevate us to a point where we are stable enough to build a better world around us. "Philosophy in action" is one of their favorite mottos, and I must say I love it as well... it closes a very constructive circle between the spirit, the mind, the emotions and the body.
The New Acropolis' Principles page is a good summary of the organization's goals.
As for Manas & Kama Manas, these are Sanskrit words which have taken their roots in Hinduism. The Hindus have a way of referring to the body as a vehicle that takes the spirit where it needs to go, rather than a shell that is supposed to portray the boundaries of who we are.
Although the Acropolis usually mentions it is free of any religious bias, one of the reasons it uses the original Sanskrit terms in their teachings on the human constitution is because the Sanskrit terms are more faithful representations of the concepts taught to the students/disciples. These terms are more precise and less wordy than the translations we make of them using the English language (as you can notice based on my own translations!).
My body must go to bed now (...!), but I will make an attempt to reply to the second part of your comment eventually...!
Sorry for any typos or any sentences that don't make much sense!
Reply
Leave a comment