Dharma without a goal? What do you think?

[Onkara]

Hello Dharmic brothers and sisters

The three Dharmic religions I am familiar with: Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism, tend to teach that there is salvation through certain actions, rituals/mediation or realisations. Speaking in general.

What do you think about the idea of practising one or more of these Dharmic religions not for enlightenment/self-realisations/Salvation or merging with God, but simply out of love for God or personal health and benefit?

Do you think this is practical and possible? If so why, if not why not?
Perhaps you do this already, how do you do it?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Vinayaka]

I (and many others I presume, who focus on practicality) practically do that anyway. Although there is a BIG goal somewhere in the recesses of mind, its not something we really should focus on too much, because then we miss all the little things. Some philosophies to tend to that though. (Only looking at the big goal.) Kind of like a futuristic architect standing out in a place away from his designed building, and visualising the final outcome only, while forgetting about the plumber, the electrician, the cost, the window guy, future maintenance and all the other little things that make the building functional. So from my POV, as long as you are living the to the laws of dharma to the best of your ability, you don't need to be thinking about goals. They'll come naturally anyway. So be the worker bee, not the architect.

 

[Onkara]

... So from my POV, as long as you are living the to the laws of dharma to the best of your ability, you don't need to be thinking about goals. They'll come naturally anyway. So be the worker bee, not the architect.

Thanks Vinayaka, for your input.
I liked what you wrote, especially the last part. I think you are right, the fruits will come and so it is wiser to concentrate on living to the best of our ability with the laws of dharma.

I guess, on the daily level, this can be about bhakti and living morally, would you agree?

 

[Vinayaka]

Thanks Vinayaka, for your input.
I liked what you wrote, especially the last part. I think you are right, the fruits will come and so it is wiser to concentrate on living to the best of our ability with the laws of dharma.

I guess, on the daily level, this can be about bhakti and living morally, would you agree?

Yes I agree. The first two rungs of the ladder of Patanjali ... are yamas and nyamas, the rest follow naturally, but these two need to be mastered first, or at least living according to them most of the time. Even bhakti is a natural outcome. Bhakti fruitless if you have no self-control, which is essentially the yamas. (ahimsa, steadfastness, moderate appetite, etc.)

 

[Onkara]

Thanks Vinayaka
I must agree with you. How would you stop yourself from desiring liberation or some form of salvation yet practice your religion?

 

[Jainarayan]

...but simply out of love for God...

Bhakti, devotion to God. I think of it as love of God for its (love's) own sake. Everything else follows.

 

[crossfire]

Thanks Vinayaka
I must agree with you. How would you stop yourself from desiring liberation or some form of salvation yet practice your religion?

You can look into the Bodhisattva angle of helping others.

 

[Vinayaka]

Bhakti, devotion to God. I think of it as love of God for its (love's) own sake. Everything else follows.

This is definitely the Gaudiya Vaishnava POV, (some sects, or individuals anyway) which I personally don't adhere to. From personal experience, without a foundation of morality, bhakti will lead you anywhere. From my POV, There has to be more to it than just loving God. That sounds too easy.

"How come you stole from your neighbour and slept with his wife?"
"Don't worry, man. It's okay, because I love God."

... this line of reasoning sounds a little fishy to me, but then again lots of stuff sounds fishy to me.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Is salvation different from abandoning self-cherishing, self-involved concepts of liberation, enlightenment, or mystical union? Is perhaps the practice of salvation itself salvation, for the sake of pure awareness and no other, certainly no narrowly construed personal awareness, though certainly not excluding the same?

 

[Jainarayan]

"How come you stole from your neighbour and slept with his wife?"
"Don't worry, man. It's okay, because I love God."

... this line of reasoning sounds a little fishy to me, but then again lots of stuff sounds fishy to me.

Sure, there are people who will use that rationalization. It's called, in western theology, "Presumption of God's mercy", that God's mercy and forgiveness can be abused:

Presumption on [sic] God's mercy occurs when you consent to a sin because "God has already forgiven me" or "I will just go to confession later." Because, when taken to the extreme, it utterly nullifies all morality, it is a mortal sin in and of itself.

It's the mindset that says you can fornicate on Saturday night, but say an Act of Contrition on Sunday morning before receiving Communion and all is well. It may have a western name, but I think it's a human concept regardless of religion, philosophy or geography.

If your love and devotion to God, and desire to please is strong, even if you do fall, it's not with a willfulness or the aforementioned presumption on His/Her mercy and forgiveness. Given that strong sense of bhakti, karma yoga follows. Sri Krishna says in B.G. 9.30 "Even a confirmed sinner, if he worships Me with unwavering faith and devotion, must verily be considered as righteous; for he has indeed taken the right resolve." I don't believe this means presumption of His mercy, rather that one who tries and tries to do good, but just can't get it right, is still considered righteous, because of his desire to do good. This is just my perspective.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

The Zen masters taught that one is not to expect to achieve anything in practice, and to practice meditation simply for it's own sake, without desiring to achieve any kind of goal. They say that to desire a goal when practicing, makes that goal become a hindrance to one's practice.

 

[Vinayaka]

Vaishnavas generally start at bhakti, yes. 75+% is on bhakti. Smartas generally start at jnana. In my tradition we use seva, bhakti, and yoga simultaneously which bears the fruit of jnana. So the approach is somewhat different. But its all good.

 

[SageTree]

I feel that practicing Dharma is the best way to live, for me.
The rest seems to take care of itself, more or less, without further consideration.

 

[crossfire]

I feel that practicing Dharma is the best way to live, for me.
The rest seems to take care of itself, more or less, without further consideration.

Dharma is both delicious and satisfying.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Dharma is both delicious and satisfying.

And nutritious.

 

[SageTree]

No trans-fats and lots of omega oils, that is why it's veggie friendly.

 

[Vinayaka]

Dharma without a goal, not dharma with a bowl ... sheesh

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Dharma without a goal, not dharma with a bowl ... sheesh

Ooooh, I was confused there for a moment.

 

[Vinayaka]

Hey 'for a moment' is a way ahead of 'all the durned time'

 

[Onkara]

Is salvation different from abandoning self-cherishing, self-involved concepts of liberation, enlightenment, or mystical union? Is perhaps the practice of salvation itself salvation, for the sake of pure awareness and no other, certainly no narrowly construed personal awareness, though certainly not excluding the same?

Very good points. The initial question has some underlying inaccuracies from that perspective.

Thank you all for your answers!