Petrichor wrote:"If you want a mediocre trajectory of life, with a nice work-life balance and the ability to enjoy the pleasures of life, take the easy well-trodden path. Kick back and enjoy the ride. If, however, you want to make a difference, have an impact, you need to live life like a hermit. Even as you are feted, and life around you seems like a party with music and dance, you have to live the life of an ascetic - focused and single-minded on your first love, your passion!"

Petrichor wrote:"If you want a mediocre trajectory of life, with a nice work-life balance and the ability to enjoy the pleasures of life, take the easy well-trodden path. Kick back and enjoy the ride. If, however, you want to make a difference, have an impact, you need to live life like a hermit. Even as you are feted, and life around you seems like a party with music and dance, you have to live the life of an ascetic - focused and single-minded on your first love, your passion!"

namo wrote:The second path is all nice and dandy, but what if one doesn't know what one's passion is?

Kris wrote:

namo wrote:The second path is all nice and dandy, but what if one doesn't know what one's passion is?

>>>Gets even more confusing if one's passion is enjoying the pleasures of life. Why do they have to be mutually exclusive options?

Rishi wrote:

Petrichor wrote:"If you want a mediocre trajectory of life, with a nice work-life balance and the ability to enjoy the pleasures of life, take the easy well-trodden path. Kick back and enjoy the ride. If, however, you want to make a difference, have an impact, you need to live life like a hermit. Even as you are feted, and life around you seems like a party with music and dance, you have to live the life of an ascetic - focused and single-minded on your first love, your passion!"

>>> Did you get that stuff from this book?

http://www.amazon.com/The-ONE-Thing-Surprisingly-Extraordinary/dp/1885167776/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383880411&sr=8-1&keywords=one+thing

Petrichor wrote:

Kris wrote:

namo wrote:The second path is all nice and dandy, but what if one doesn't know what one's passion is?

>>>Gets even more confusing if one's passion is enjoying the pleasures of life. Why do they have to be mutually exclusive options?

The objective is to "make a difference, have an impact" - the passion is, presumably, some specific way of meeting that objective.

Petrichor wrote:make a difference to the world - have an impact on the lives of fellow human beings.

positive difference, positive impact!

Petrichor wrote:make a difference to the world - have an impact on the lives of fellow human beings.

positive difference, positive impact!

namo wrote:

Petrichor wrote:make a difference to the world - have an impact on the lives of fellow human beings.

positive difference, positive impact!

If one has such an objective, then one does that for his/her own sake: to feel good about themselves. The feeling that they are working towards making a difference to the world and having an impact on the lives of fellow beings is a huge ego booster. Living the life of an ascetic to meet that objective adds more to their ego and the feeling of being superior and better than others.

Petrichor wrote:

namo wrote:

Petrichor wrote:make a difference to the world - have an impact on the lives of fellow human beings.

positive difference, positive impact!

If one has such an objective, then one does that for his/her own sake: to feel good about themselves. The feeling that they are working towards making a difference to the world and having an impact on the lives of fellow beings is a huge ego booster. Living the life of an ascetic to meet that objective adds more to their ego and the feeling of being superior and better than others.

Agreed....good point. To counter that, the 'Hindu' response is to develop a detachment, the 'Christian' response is to envelop the whole package with LOVE or a delusion of Love for humanity. It is fraught but a worthy pursuit.

namo wrote:

Petrichor wrote:

namo wrote:

Petrichor wrote:make a difference to the world - have an impact on the lives of fellow human beings.

positive difference, positive impact!

If one has such an objective, then one does that for his/her own sake: to feel good about themselves. The feeling that they are working towards making a difference to the world and having an impact on the lives of fellow beings is a huge ego booster. Living the life of an ascetic to meet that objective adds more to their ego and the feeling of being superior and better than others.

Agreed....good point. To counter that, the 'Hindu' response is to develop a detachment, the 'Christian' response is to envelop the whole package with LOVE or a delusion of Love for humanity. It is fraught but a worthy pursuit.

The Hindu response to that is to focus on oneself (to know oneself, to better oneself (the scope is unlimited)), not on others. If you love yourself, your love is radiated outward too, automatically. You don't have make an effort to 'love your neighbor'. 
Yeah, it does prescribe Karma yoga, the unselfish performance of one's duties/work without the expectation of results. But again, that's for your own betterment, not to 'change the world' or 'have an impact on others'. The latter happens automatically with true karma yogis in the world. One doesn't need to make an effort to make it happen.

namo wrote:

namo wrote:

Petrichor wrote:

namo wrote:

Petrichor wrote:make a difference to the world - have an impact on the lives of fellow human beings.

positive difference, positive impact!

If one has such an objective, then one does that for his/her own sake: to feel good about themselves. The feeling that they are working towards making a difference to the world and having an impact on the lives of fellow beings is a huge ego booster. Living the life of an ascetic to meet that objective adds more to their ego and the feeling of being superior and better than others.

Agreed....good point. To counter that, the 'Hindu' response is to develop a detachment, the 'Christian' response is to envelop the whole package with LOVE or a delusion of Love for humanity. It is fraught but a worthy pursuit.

The Hindu response to that is to focus on oneself (to know oneself, to better oneself (the scope is unlimited)), not on others. If you love yourself, your love is radiated outward too, automatically. You don't have make an effort to 'love your neighbor'. 
Yeah, it does prescribe Karma yoga, the unselfish performance of one's duties/work without the expectation of results. But again, that's for your own betterment, not to 'change the world' or 'have an impact on others'. The latter happens automatically with true karma yogis in the world. One doesn't need to make an effort to make it happen.

Duties/dharma also include following your passions.

namo wrote:

namo wrote:

Petrichor wrote:

namo wrote:

Petrichor wrote:make a difference to the world - have an impact on the lives of fellow human beings.

positive difference, positive impact!

If one has such an objective, then one does that for his/her own sake: to feel good about themselves. The feeling that they are working towards making a difference to the world and having an impact on the lives of fellow beings is a huge ego booster. Living the life of an ascetic to meet that objective adds more to their ego and the feeling of being superior and better than others.

Agreed....good point. To counter that, the 'Hindu' response is to develop a detachment, the 'Christian' response is to envelop the whole package with LOVE or a delusion of Love for humanity. It is fraught but a worthy pursuit.

The Hindu response to that is to focus on oneself (to know oneself, to better oneself (the scope is unlimited)), not on others. If you love yourself, your love is radiated outward too, automatically. You don't have make an effort to 'love your neighbor'. 
Yeah, it does prescribe Karma yoga, the unselfish performance of one's duties/work without the expectation of results. But again, that's for your own betterment, not to 'change the world' or 'have an impact on others'. The latter happens automatically with true karma yogis in the world. One doesn't need to make an effort to make it happen.

Duties/dharma also include following your passions.

Petrichor wrote:

namo wrote:

namo wrote:

Petrichor wrote:

namo wrote:If one has such an objective, then one does that for his/her own sake: to feel good about themselves. The feeling that they are working towards making a difference to the world and having an impact on the lives of fellow beings is a huge ego booster. Living the life of an ascetic to meet that objective adds more to their ego and the feeling of being superior and better than others.

Agreed....good point. To counter that, the 'Hindu' response is to develop a detachment, the 'Christian' response is to envelop the whole package with LOVE or a delusion of Love for humanity. It is fraught but a worthy pursuit.

The Hindu response to that is to focus on oneself (to know oneself, to better oneself (the scope is unlimited)), not on others. If you love yourself, your love is radiated outward too, automatically. You don't have make an effort to 'love your neighbor'. 
Yeah, it does prescribe Karma yoga, the unselfish performance of one's duties/work without the expectation of results. But again, that's for your own betterment, not to 'change the world' or 'have an impact on others'. The latter happens automatically with true karma yogis in the world. One doesn't need to make an effort to make it happen.

Duties/dharma also include following your passions.

Sounds contradictory. Duty/Dharma is dictated by external factors. Passion is intrinsic/innate/self-generating. Unless you mean that by the time passion arises sui generis, it has been thoroughly determined (or dictated) by the dharmic/duty edict just like a 'stern parental' executive function of the mind.

Petrichor wrote:

namo wrote:

The Hindu response to that is to focus on oneself (to know oneself, to better oneself (the scope is unlimited)), not on others. If you love yourself, your love is radiated outward too, automatically. You don't have make an effort to 'love your neighbor'. 
Yeah, it does prescribe Karma yoga, the unselfish performance of one's duties/work without the expectation of results. But again, that's for your own betterment, not to 'change the world' or 'have an impact on others'. The latter happens automatically with true karma yogis in the world. One doesn't need to make an effort to make it happen.

Duties/dharma also include following your passions.

Sounds contradictory. Duty/Dharma is dictated by external factors. Passion is intrinsic/innate/self-generating. Unless you mean that by the time passion arises sui generis, it has been thoroughly determined (or dictated) by the dharmic/duty edict just like a 'stern parental' executive function of the mind.

namo wrote:

Petrichor wrote:

namo wrote:

The Hindu response to that is to focus on oneself (to know oneself, to better oneself (the scope is unlimited)), not on others. If you love yourself, your love is radiated outward too, automatically. You don't have make an effort to 'love your neighbor'. 
Yeah, it does prescribe Karma yoga, the unselfish performance of one's duties/work without the expectation of results. But again, that's for your own betterment, not to 'change the world' or 'have an impact on others'. The latter happens automatically with true karma yogis in the world. One doesn't need to make an effort to make it happen.

Duties/dharma also include following your passions.

Sounds contradictory. Duty/Dharma is dictated by external factors. Passion is intrinsic/innate/self-generating. Unless you mean that by the time passion arises sui generis, it has been thoroughly determined (or dictated) by the dharmic/duty edict just like a 'stern parental' executive function of the mind.

You are a father, husband, son, brother, employee, citizen, etc. Your duty in all these roles is your dharma. Perform them to the best of your ability with a sense of karma yoga (unselfish, without expecting any returns). And then, your passion is to tutor and maybe tutor the inner city kids. You have this irresistible drive to tutor them and that gives you immense pleasure and satisfaction to do so. Then that's your calling, your dharma and that's going to refine and uplift your inner self. Do it to the best of your ability, but not with the superior notion that you are changing the world or having an impact on them (this is again against expecting results for your action which you may not may not get). Your work is only to tutor.

garam_kuta wrote:

Petrichor wrote:

namo wrote:

namo wrote:

Petrichor wrote:Agreed....good point. To counter that, the 'Hindu' response is to develop a detachment, the 'Christian' response is to envelop the whole package with LOVE or a delusion of Love for humanity. It is fraught but a worthy pursuit.

The Hindu response to that is to focus on oneself (to know oneself, to better oneself (the scope is unlimited)), not on others. If you love yourself, your love is radiated outward too, automatically. You don't have make an effort to 'love your neighbor'. 
Yeah, it does prescribe Karma yoga, the unselfish performance of one's duties/work without the expectation of results. But again, that's for your own betterment, not to 'change the world' or 'have an impact on others'. The latter happens automatically with true karma yogis in the world. One doesn't need to make an effort to make it happen.

Duties/dharma also include following your passions.

Sounds contradictory. Duty/Dharma is dictated by external factors. Passion is intrinsic/innate/self-generating. Unless you mean that by the time passion arises sui generis, it has been thoroughly determined (or dictated) by the dharmic/duty edict just like a 'stern parental' executive function of the mind.

works well for beethoven and tiger woods for example; however newton, einstein, bobby fischer and such must have been difficult children for the parents to cope up with and to promote their children's passion.

Petrichor wrote:There's a lot of verbiage and perhaps we are coming at the issue from different vantage points.
I will try to make this clear for everyone:

We all have limited time and resources, or finite. We all have our 'dharma' and duties in different capacities - and our passions arise based on our life experiences and need not always be dictated by our dharma. In other words, one might be a husband with specific duties towards one's wife but his passion might be pure Math. He might spend hours and hours resolving Math research. It might even be his 'calling' based on his aptitude for it. The question is how do you resolve the conflict between his duty as a husband versus his pursuit of his passion.

Now I realize that I am simplifying the passion to something that is not necessarily making a "difference/impact" but that is only so we can address this first question. My limited point is it is all fine and dandy (those words again!) to say that one should follow one's dharma but in a practical sense this will have a cost - either the passion is not pursued or one fails in his dharmic duty.

On another note, I think it is fine to talk of 'detached action' - the only way to achieve true excellence is to be unmoved by the results of one's actions and do it with a sense of reverence. So karma yoga doesn't break any modern conceptions of how 'excellence' is reaped with one's actions.

Going back to where we started, this sense of detached pursuit of one's passion or being an ascetic seems de riguer especially for someone that is interested in 'making a difference/having an impact'.

garam_kuta wrote:

Petrichor wrote:
Going back to where we started, this sense of detached pursuit of one's passion or being an ascetic seems de riguer especially for someone that is interested in 'making a difference/having an impact'.

yes, but strictly with dues to pay, i am afraid...

Petrichor wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

Petrichor wrote:
Going back to where we started, this sense of detached pursuit of one's passion or being an ascetic seems de riguer especially for someone that is interested in 'making a difference/having an impact'.

yes, but strictly with dues to pay, i am afraid...

Sure, and that is precisely the point of the first post. An idealist starts off with grand ambitions and sometimes fails to see the trade-offs involved. And this is also frequently a reason for not quite reaching that summit (of doing public good) or some confused "Hindoo" thinking that tries to juggle everything including 'dharma', passion and a million other media messages of modernity.