+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 10 1 10 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 182

Thread: The Banality of Evil

  1. Link to Post #1
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th March 2011
    Age
    73
    Posts
    3,947
    Thanks
    7,148
    Thanked 23,233 times in 3,618 posts

    Default The Banality of Evil

    The Banality of Evil

    Evil is an act of deliberately or unwittingly causing harm to others, in body, speech or mind
    ('unwittingly' because at the back of our mind, in our conscience, we know what we are
    doing but we have gone so far down the road of habitual behaviour that we find it difficult
    to turn back).

    This activity of causing harm is something we are all good at. It can range from making
    someone feel uncomfortable (where it is the sowing of a seed), to ignoring them, to
    physical and mental abuse. Evil happens when we lack love: love is recognising our own
    goodness in others.

    Even if we are not the perpetrator, but instigate it or permit others to do the evil, we are just
    as accountable. Despite the fact that evil-doers may have been 'brought to account', a residue
    of their action leaves an effect....even worse is the intention to leave an effect,
    which is generally one of fear.

    Ignorance is no excuse, as the harm has been done. We are all accountable, and all controlled
    by fear, which happens in every walk of life: there are assumptions we make about life which
    put pressure on others. Our behaviour is learnt. We may justify our actions by telling ourselves
    that we are caring, but behind our actions is a personal agenda - or worse, an unwitting
    expression of the agenda of others.

    Evil is a very subtle business, and we hardly notice its presence.The real danger is when,
    by merely watching evil, whether in life or on film, we note that we want to retaliate:
    that is evil welling up inside us!

    Of course we have to stop evil. If we approach this on a conventional level (the relative level)
    we run into many problems, as this is approached though the ego. We need to be able to apply
    clarity and cool intelligence, otherwise we just make things worse.

    In order to have clarity and cool intelligence, we need to go to the absolute level - spirituality.
    We are talking here about allowing our thoughts and emotions to control us, and thereby control
    others. Until we know the true nature of our mind – beyond the contents, which are ego-driven
    – we cannot say that we are free and awake, and beyond manipulation.


    “The banality of evil” is a philosophical term, meaning that evil occurs when ordinary individuals
    are put into corrupt situations which encourage their conformity. The phrase, “the banality of evil”
    was coined by the philosopher Hannah Arendt, after witnessing the trial of high-ranking Nazi
    Adolf Eichmann, who seemed, at least to Arendt, to be the most mundane of individuals whose evil
    acts were driven by the requirements of the state and orders from above.

    The Milgram experiment on obedience to figures of authority was a series of social psychology
    experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. They measured the
    willingness of study participants to obey a figure of authority who instructed them to perform
    acts conflicting with their personal conscience. These experiments began in July 1961,
    three months after the start of the trial of Eichmann.



    The world is becoming more and more unjust,
    and many are closing their eyes to this.
    Evil is thus committed by consent.

    If we still think we are beyond all this,
    we need to think again.

    Until we know what is going on in our own minds,
    and recognise the true essence of our mind,
    we will never be free of evil.




    Tony
    www.buddhainthemud.com

  2. The Following 27 Users Say Thank You to Tony For This Post:

    Alekahn2 (12th May 2014), Alpha (12th May 2014), Amenjo (12th May 2014), Aragorn (13th May 2014), avid (12th May 2014), Blacklight43 (12th May 2014), Craig (13th May 2014), ElfeMya (13th May 2014), giovonni (17th May 2014), joeecho (12th May 2014), lastlegs (12th May 2014), Lifebringer (12th May 2014), loungelizard (15th May 2014), Milneman (12th May 2014), minkton (12th May 2014), naste.de.lumina (12th May 2014), peterpam (13th May 2014), PixieDust (12th May 2014), raregem (24th May 2014), Rich (12th May 2014), Shezbeth (15th May 2014), Snowflower (27th May 2014), spiritguide (12th May 2014), spizella (27th May 2014), Tesla_WTC_Solution (12th May 2014), Tooloud Ferme (23rd May 2014), Wind (12th May 2014)

  3. Link to Post #2
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th March 2011
    Age
    73
    Posts
    3,947
    Thanks
    7,148
    Thanked 23,233 times in 3,618 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    For those who never knew it happened..or could ever happen again.




    Tony
    www.buddhainthemud.com

  4. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Tony For This Post:

    giovonni (17th May 2014), loungelizard (15th May 2014), Milneman (12th May 2014), naste.de.lumina (12th May 2014), peterpam (13th May 2014), raregem (24th May 2014), Shezbeth (15th May 2014), ulli (13th May 2014)

  5. Link to Post #3
    United States Avalon Member PixieDust's Avatar
    Join Date
    15th May 2011
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Age
    31
    Posts
    231
    Thanks
    747
    Thanked 1,268 times in 212 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    It's such a simple concept, but one most people can't grasp. Parents try to teach this lesson to their kids but turn around and create evil themselves. Reading your post I was thinking...well duh. But not in a mean spirited way but in the sense that this lesson is in everyone's face but never learned.

    Thanks for the reminder!

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to PixieDust For This Post:

    avid (12th May 2014), loungelizard (15th May 2014), Milneman (12th May 2014), raregem (24th May 2014), Shezbeth (15th May 2014), Tony (12th May 2014)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    26th December 2010
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    9,560
    Thanks
    37,831
    Thanked 52,760 times in 8,858 posts

    Talking Re: The Banality of Evil

    I am not in agreement with your definition of evil to start with. So i do not know how I could participate in the argumentation???

    To me, we often do evil without even being conscious about it, in the back of our mind. Evil is most often based on ignorance, doing harm through ignorance of others needs, of how to detect others needs, of not knowing we are all one, of presumptions based on some of our false beliefs, of thiking only of oneself, etc. Therefore, evil is rarely willed. However, when evil is willed, there you something that is truly negative, worst than stupidity and ignorance.

    Some evil are semi-conscious, but some unwittingly harming others is truly fully unconscious, like the lion eating the lamb, or truly conscious like the cabal planning the harm done to others.
    Last edited by Flash; 12th May 2014 at 20:12.

  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Amenjo (12th May 2014), Aragorn (13th May 2014), Lefty Dave (12th May 2014), loungelizard (15th May 2014), Milneman (12th May 2014), Shezbeth (12th May 2014), Tony (12th May 2014), william r sanford72 (27th May 2014)

  9. Link to Post #5
    Deactivated
    Join Date
    1st May 2011
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks
    1,909
    Thanked 4,480 times in 1,174 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    Anyone at any time can make the choice to go back. It's a fact: I've done it. However, most people I suspect won't go back because they either enjoy the gain they receive by lying to themselves, or they are, as the video demonstrates, egged on by the other people in the boat to stop rocking. Evil can also be harm brought on to the self.

    Tony, to tell you the truth, I'm not sure that anyone is actually ignorant of it. If anything I wonder if perhaps we're all just good at playing ignorant on the stage.

    I've been thinking this phrase a lot lately in doing my own readings and writings:

    Doesn't this whole way of doing things get really boring??

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Milneman For This Post:

    loungelizard (15th May 2014), peterpam (13th May 2014), Shezbeth (12th May 2014), Tony (12th May 2014)

  11. Link to Post #6
    Deactivated
    Join Date
    1st May 2011
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks
    1,909
    Thanked 4,480 times in 1,174 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    Quote Posted by Flash (here)
    I am not in agreement with your definition of evil to start with. So i do not know how I could participate in the argumentation???

    To me, we often do evil without even being conscious about it, in the back of our mind. Evil is most often based on ignorance, doing harm through ignorance of others needs, of how to detect others needs, of not knowing we are all one, of presumptions based on some of our false beliefs, of thiking only of oneself, etc. Therefore, evil is rarely willed. However, when evil is willed, there you something that is truly negative, worst than stupidity and ignorance.

    Some evil are semi-conscious, but some unwittingly harming others is truly fully unconscious, like the lion eating the lamb, or truly conscious like the cabal planning the harm done to others.
    Almost with you on this Flash.

    To me, and by my experience and observation, I find it a very rare thing indeed when someone who claims to be ignorant actually is ignorant; in fact, I think they are actually quite keenly aware of their own needs and just choose to supersede those needs over anyone else's. Rarely willed? I'd say if it's not willed it's a natural evil.

    I'm doing battle with the problem of evil right now so this post is pretty timely. I hope we can get some vigorous dialogue going! It'd be a good help in my own analysis!

    For example: is a lion who eats a lamb committing an evil act, or is the lion merely perpetrating it's own survival? What about the she-lion who kills the lamb to feed her young? I'm drawn to the idea of Plato's attack on hedonism here. Namely, there are in some cases goods which would be considered evil, and evils which would be considered good. Can we then justify the belief in goods and evils as absolutes, or do we have to find something greater even than good and evil?

    The problem I'm currently working on is how to justify that good is a greater quality than evil. Shouldn't be a difficult one right? Except that when you use the quality in context to explaining a hypothetical idea, or concept, that can be used to bring into question the actual existence of that idea. For example: unicorns are good, unicorns are evil. Do we base our belief on unicorns by the way they are described as good or as evil? Or do we hold the relative concepts together and false because we believe truly that unicorns do not exist? Seems simple enough right?

    Except.....

    ....when the concept of God comes into play, if we describe God as evil, maximally evil, as opposed to maximally good, generally people rule out the evil God concept. But why is it any more reasonable to believe in a good God than an evil one if we are so easily swayed to dismiss the idea of an evil God? I'm trying to crack that argument.

    I digress.

    Evil is natural or man-made. Natural evils are different from man-made evils in that a natural evil does not have a perceived intent behind it, it exists as an act of nature with no aimed target: it's random. Man-made evils come about because of need and conflict of desire. They are intentional. I find it really difficult to accept the concept that an evil can occur through the action of man without any conscious awareness of the possibility of that evil occurring. However, I am easily bound to the idea that common sense is extremely uncommon.

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Milneman For This Post:

    Flash (12th May 2014), loungelizard (15th May 2014), Shezbeth (12th May 2014), Tony (12th May 2014)

  13. Link to Post #7
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th March 2011
    Age
    73
    Posts
    3,947
    Thanks
    7,148
    Thanked 23,233 times in 3,618 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    Quote Posted by Flash (here)
    I am not in agreement with your definition of evil to start with. So i do not know how I could participate in the argumentation???

    To me, we often do evil without even being conscious about it, in the back of our mind. Evil is most often based on ignorance, doing harm through ignorance of others needs, of how to detect others needs, of not knowing we are all one, of presumptions based on some of our false beliefs, of thiking only of oneself, etc. Therefore, evil is rarely willed. However, when evil is willed, there you something that is truly negative, worst than stupidity and ignorance.

    Some evil are semi-conscious, but some unwittingly harming others is truly fully unconscious, like the lion eating the lamb, or truly conscious like the cabal planning the harm done to others.
    On a relative level, we are involved in a mind game and we don't see the ego at work - or we choose not to. But at our absolute level, we see this clearly, and any thing that obscures our pure perception (in Sanskrit, these obscurations are known as "kleshas") colours our view. With some, this is stronger than in others: there are those who seem to have zero empathy. It's because of this conflict of wishing to defend something (usually our own ideas) that aggression manifests.

    You can see in their eyes how much people are self-aware,"I" aware, ego aware. There are often "tells" when people try to justify their actions, which show that they are aware of their projections and the harm they are doing. When we are in the company of likeminded people, we're fine...but if we come across someone who doesn't play our game, sparks start to fly as the game is disrupted.

    We are confused beings in a confused world. Although we may not call our actions evil, from the ultimate viewpoint, even the simple act of trying to get the better of someone is demon activity - despite the fact that, in the relative world, it's just called the cut and thrust of ordinary life.

    Tony
    www.buddhainthemud.com

  14. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Tony For This Post:

    Amenjo (12th May 2014), joeecho (12th May 2014), loungelizard (15th May 2014), Milneman (12th May 2014), minkton (13th May 2014), peterpam (13th May 2014), Shezbeth (15th May 2014), Tooloud Ferme (23rd May 2014)

  15. Link to Post #8
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th March 2011
    Age
    73
    Posts
    3,947
    Thanks
    7,148
    Thanked 23,233 times in 3,618 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    Quote Posted by Milneman (here)
    Anyone at any time can make the choice to go back. It's a fact: I've done it. However, most people I suspect won't go back because they either enjoy the gain they receive by lying to themselves, or they are, as the video demonstrates, egged on by the other people in the boat to stop rocking. Evil can also be harm brought on to the self.

    Tony, to tell you the truth, I'm not sure that anyone is actually ignorant of it. If anything I wonder if perhaps we're all just good at playing ignorant on the stage.
    Agreed.

    However ...on a conventional level, there is right and wrong. There are opposites. There are things that appear to be beneficial, and harmful to the survival of our physical bodies. This is our relative existence - and of course, every sentient being has to survive according to its relative nature (pecking order, dog eat dog etc).

    On an absolute level, there is merely pure awareness. Uncontaminated perception. But this is advanced yogi stuff, although clearly seen in meditation. It's our true, disinterested being.

    Though we are pure emptiness, we have awareness (which could be called expression). In general terms, we lose the identity of our pure nature when we are expressing ourselves - we forget who we truly are. The trick is to rest in pure awareness, and then our conduct in our daily life is just the continuity of that pure awareness: we are aware of a "mere ego", a "mere I" that is necessary to function in our present physical form.

    We have to accept whatever comes up in our life as that is the exhaustion of our karma. If we react and fight, we merely create more karma (all this is only seen in the practice of meditation and not in theory). I suppose it's all about recognising infinite space, which is mind essence. Then anything that arises within that space has no effect on us - like a thief entering an empty house, there is nothing to gain so they merely leave. And so thoughts and emotions are self-liberated.

    This is for those who are practitioners; if one is not a practitioner, then one will become caught up in the expression of the thoughts in the mind and be in constant turmoil. Forums are not the ideal place for such discussions, as one needs a sympathetic atmosphere in order to investigate and discuss subtleties

    If knowledge is used for selfish gain, we end up in mental agitation. If knowledge is used to gain wisdom, we end up in inner peace.

    Evil has a seeming reality when we want to protect our physical bodies. However, ultimately, it is merely a mistaken understanding arising from causes and conditions. And when this body dies, we have to go through it all again until we learn

    Tony
    www.buddhainthemud.com

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Tony For This Post:

    joeecho (12th May 2014), loungelizard (15th May 2014), Milneman (12th May 2014), minkton (13th May 2014), Shezbeth (15th May 2014), Wind (12th May 2014)

  17. Link to Post #9
    Deactivated
    Join Date
    1st May 2011
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks
    1,909
    Thanked 4,480 times in 1,174 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    The simplest practice one can do to understand this is as easy and yet as difficult as climbing a mountain.

    Simply practice absolute honesty in every aspect of one's life. With one's self, with others, and notice why one makes the choices one makes, what one wants, and why one wants what one wants.

    You wear a rubber band on your wrist. Every time you tell a lie, or you lie to yourself, snap it.

    Really! That simple!

    And that profoundly difficult. :D

    I mean, you can say OM while you snap it if you want but.....

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Milneman For This Post:

    Shezbeth (12th May 2014), Tony (12th May 2014), william r sanford72 (27th May 2014)

  19. Link to Post #10
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th March 2011
    Age
    73
    Posts
    3,947
    Thanks
    7,148
    Thanked 23,233 times in 3,618 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    The only reality is our pure awareness. Every thing comes to pass. This world will always have suffering in it because sentient beings are deluded, and ignorant of their true nature.

    If an action is for selfish gain, on a relative level that can be said to be neither here nor there, as everyone does it, and it's a tough world out there.
    From an absolute level, nothing can be done for selfish gain: everything has to be for the benefit of others.

    If we are on a spiritual path, situations are challenging. That's why we're here...to learn, clarify and evolve.
    To recognise...and then let go of that which we have recognised...to be left with pure awareness.

    Tony
    www.buddhainthemud.com

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Tony For This Post:

    joeecho (12th May 2014), loungelizard (15th May 2014), Milneman (12th May 2014), Shezbeth (15th May 2014), Tooloud Ferme (5th June 2014), Wind (12th May 2014)

  21. Link to Post #11
    Deactivated
    Join Date
    1st May 2011
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks
    1,909
    Thanked 4,480 times in 1,174 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    Pure awareness: is this purely empirical?

    Every thing comes to pass: what about what doesn't or can't? I'm playing with the idea of the many worlds theory. Consider this possibility: a world which exists among the many worlds where NO other possible worlds can or do exist. It's logically possible. I think according to many worlds theory, it's even possible. But the point is if that is possible, namely a world can exist where no other possible worlds exists, then there CAN only be one world right? Which means we either exist in it, or we don't exist at all.



    From an absolute level, nothing can be done for selfish gain: everything has to be for the benefit of others.

    I agree in principle.

    Except for one small detail.

    "This world will always have suffering in it because sentient beings are deluded, and ignorant of their true nature."

    (Tony, I really like you a lot! I'm making trouble for you with no animosity here. This is good cafe metaphysics only, minus the cafe or wine )

    IF that statement is true, then how can you be justified in saying that the reason we're here is to learn, clarify and evolve? Could this not be another aspect of our delusion? How, in other words, can we know with certainty what our true nature is if by our nature we can't know our true nature?

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Milneman For This Post:

    loungelizard (15th May 2014), Shezbeth (12th May 2014), Tony (14th May 2014)

  23. Link to Post #12
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    30th March 2014
    Location
    Zero Sum
    Age
    58
    Posts
    2,937
    Thanks
    12,979
    Thanked 15,293 times in 2,822 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    Evil is derivative and worst still, ignorant of that fact.

    Take the words 'false' and 'prophet', one might assume one degrades the others value (when taken together). I would suggest that that is not true.

    Prophet or a false prophet, both are derivative. Both seek a glory of some kind yet both dissipate in the presence of the one true light.

    Is the messenger greater or equal to the message? Is the message greater or equal to it's origin?

  24. Link to Post #13
    Deactivated
    Join Date
    1st May 2011
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks
    1,909
    Thanked 4,480 times in 1,174 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    Quote Posted by joeecho (here)
    Evil is derivative and worst still, ignorant of that fact.

    Take the words 'false' and 'prophet', one might assume one degrades the others value (when taken together). I would suggest that that is not true.

    Prophet or a false prophet, both are derivative. Both seek a glory of some kind yet both dissipate in the presence of the one true light.

    Is the messenger greater or equal to the message? Is the message greater or equal to it's origin?
    Problem for you.

    Good is derivative and worse still, ignorant of the fact.

    Take the words "true" and "poster", one might assume that one uplifts the other value (when taken together). I would suggest that is not true.

    "True" or "true poster", both are derivative. Both seek a glory of some kind, yet both dissipate in the presence of the one true light. (What exactly is the one true light anyway? Is it a bulb that one turns on or off, is it an idea? If it's an idea, where does that idea exist, how does that idea exist, what mind did that idea originate in?)

    Is the poster greater or equal to the post? Is the post greater or equal to it's poster?

    The problem begins in your first sentence. Goodness as an innate quality or idea exists in a mind which is not ignorant of the fact that it is good, or perceives goodness. So why is it unreasonable to assume that evil is any different? After that, the rest of the argument kind of backs that fact up, as you can see with the role reversal I've played. Cheers!
    Last edited by Milneman; 12th May 2014 at 21:51.

  25. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Milneman For This Post:

    joeecho (12th May 2014), loungelizard (15th May 2014), Shezbeth (12th May 2014), Tony (14th May 2014)

  26. Link to Post #14
    Ireland Avalon Member gnostic9's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2014
    Age
    58
    Posts
    201
    Thanks
    1,678
    Thanked 811 times in 172 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    Quote Posted by Milneman (here)
    Quote Posted by joeecho (here)
    Evil is derivative and worst still, ignorant of that fact.

    Take the words 'false' and 'prophet', one might assume one degrades the others value (when taken together). I would suggest that that is not true.

    Prophet or a false prophet, both are derivative. Both seek a glory of some kind yet both dissipate in the presence of the one true light.

    Is the messenger greater or equal to the message? Is the message greater or equal to it's origin?
    Problem for you.

    Good is derivative and worse still, ignorant of the fact.

    Take the words "true" and "poster", one might assume that one uplifts the other value (when taken together). I would suggest that is not true.

    "True" or "true poster", both are derivative. Both seek a glory of some kind, yet both dissipate in the presence of the one true light. (What exactly is the one true light anyway? Is it a bulb that one turns on or off, is it an idea? If it's an idea, where does that idea exist, how does that idea exist, what mind did that idea originate in?)

    Is the poster greater or equal to the post? Is the post greater or equal to it's poster?

    The problem begins in your first sentence. Goodness as an innate quality or idea exists in a mind which is not ignorant of the fact that it is good, or perceives goodness. So why is it unreasonable to assume that evil is any different? After that, the rest of the argument kind of backs that fact up, as you can see with the role reversal I've played. Cheers!
    I am probably totally wrong! but isn't "good v evil", "light v dark", "left v right" all just opposites in our duality? isn't the sacred marriage, the joining of opposites, the way to non-conflict, within and without? blessings to all here!

  27. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to gnostic9 For This Post:

    Gardener (13th May 2014), loungelizard (15th May 2014), Milneman (14th May 2014), Shezbeth (15th May 2014), Tony (14th May 2014)

  28. Link to Post #15
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    30th March 2014
    Location
    Zero Sum
    Age
    58
    Posts
    2,937
    Thanks
    12,979
    Thanked 15,293 times in 2,822 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    Quote Posted by Milneman;833708Good is derivative and worse still, ignorant of the fact.

    Take the words "true" and "poster", one might assume that one uplifts the other value (when taken together). I would suggest that is not true.

    "True" or "true poster", both are derivative. Both seek a glory of some kind, yet both dissipate in the presence of the one true light. (What exactly is the one true light anyway? Is it a bulb that one turns on or off, is it an idea? If it's an idea, where does that idea exist, how does that idea exist, what mind did that idea originate in?)

    Is the poster greater or equal to the post? Is the post greater or equal to it's poster?

    [B

    The problem begins in your first sentence. Goodness as an innate quality or idea exists in a mind which is not ignorant of the fact that it is good, or perceives goodness. So why is it unreasonable to assume that evil is any different? After that, the rest of the argument kind of backs that fact up, as you can see with the role reversal I've played. Cheers! [/B]
    I take absolutely no issue with my post being referred to as derivative, just like I don't with yours.

    Your mirror is my mirror, my mirror is yours!

    Last edited by joeecho; 12th May 2014 at 22:34.

  29. Link to Post #16
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    22nd January 2011
    Location
    Everywhere
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,506
    Thanks
    5,486
    Thanked 5,216 times in 1,274 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    I seem to recall a discussion comparable to this one,... one second.

    Quote Posted by Shezbeth (here)
    Evil - A classification of observable behaviors and phenomenon and/or perceived/theoretical dispositions that the subject(s) making the classification find to be dogmatically abhorrent, unsupportable, non-conducive, or otherwise condemnable largely through a combination of nescience, ignorance, and a lack of consideration as pertains to the etymology of the behavior/disposition in question. Specifically, an individual/group violation of a subject's moral beliefs/perceptions.
    If you were to ask sheep whether it is evil of wolves to prey on them, you would likely get agreement.

    The observer rarely describes themselves as evil, it is usually something external that is observed as being so, but this observation is a value-based judgement that is A. lacking in context and motivation B. one that (9/10 times) caters to the individual making the observation.

    Quote Posted by Tony (here)
    The only reality is our pure awareness.
    In a certain philosophical sense I agree with this theory, but it remains unproven and - to my knowledge - lacking evidence. Consensus (in light of the observable percentage that agrees or would agree) does not change this, only evidence can/does.

    What exactly is 'pure awareness'? Are you saying that awareness can exist outside of a physiological form from which to express that awareness? I agree that awareness is part of the equation (1/3 IMO), but I find your statements about it unsupportable, at least given the degree of explanation you have offered.

    Quote Posted by gnostic9 (here)
    I am probably totally wrong! but isn't "good v evil", "light v dark", "left v right" all just opposites in our duality? isn't the sacred marriage, the joining of opposites, the way to non-conflict, within and without? blessings to all here!
    You are absolutely right,... or rather your statement is 100% supported by my experience (to the point that it becomes an educated/evidenced guess). Terms like 'Good' and 'Evil' and the other examples are diametrically opposed to one another, but they are not rigid, fixed, or definite in their meaning.

    If two people are facing the same direction, one can say "Look at that tree on the left" and there won't be any confusion. If they are facing one another, the question arises "Your left or my left?". This speaks to the differences in perspective; when sharing the same perspective, the terms (right/wrong, good/evil, right/left, etc.) are agreeable to those sharing the perspective. Concurrence does not change that the terms are subjective, and the presentation of differing perspectives only illustrates that such terms are subjective.

    I appreciate your comment, as you are alluding to the fact that everything is a merger/synthesis of diametrically opposed phenomenon (oft simplified as duality). The one is always both, and the both - together - are one.

    1+1=1 ; 1/2=2
    Last edited by Shezbeth; 13th May 2014 at 00:23.

  30. Link to Post #17
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    30th March 2014
    Location
    Zero Sum
    Age
    58
    Posts
    2,937
    Thanks
    12,979
    Thanked 15,293 times in 2,822 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    Quote Posted by Shezbeth (here)
    I seem to recall a discussion comparable to this one,... one second.

    Quote Posted by Shezbeth (here)
    Evil - A classification of observable behaviors and phenomenon and/or perceived/theoretical dispositions that the subject(s) making the classification find to be dogmatically abhorrent, unsupportable, non-conducive, or otherwise condemnable largely through a combination of nescience, ignorance, and a lack of consideration as pertains to the etymology of the behavior/disposition in question. Specifically, an individual/group violation of a subject's moral beliefs/perceptions.
    If you were to ask sheep whether it is evil of wolves to prey on them, you would likely get agreement.

    The observer rarely describes themselves as evil, it is usually something external that is observed as being so, but this observation is a value-based judgement that is A. lacking in context and motivation B. one that (9/10 times) caters to the individual making the observation.
    Dogma, probably the most addictive substances in the universe.

    A blanket in the void.

  31. Link to Post #18
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    30th March 2014
    Location
    Zero Sum
    Age
    58
    Posts
    2,937
    Thanks
    12,979
    Thanked 15,293 times in 2,822 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    Quote Posted by Shezbeth (here)

    1+1=1 ; 1/2=2
    What a beautiful mind you have!

    Although notation can be both useful and beneficial, I am reminded that it lacks the final 'step', regardless of the PERCIEVED logical or illogical forms of it (I have travelled both roads). I included illogical because what is illogical to one isn't illogical to another. Which brings up another thought, logical and illogical are both the same or switch depending on the observer.

    Notation can be a wonderfully succinct form of communication both internally and externally. Perhaps a less corrupt form of communication then language??
    Last edited by joeecho; 13th May 2014 at 01:26.

  32. Link to Post #19
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th March 2011
    Age
    73
    Posts
    3,947
    Thanks
    7,148
    Thanked 23,233 times in 3,618 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    All we can do is present a view

    We are not all one, as we see reality differently. We have different backgrounds, different capacities, and use language differently.
    If we were all one, then if someone was enlightened, we would all be enlightened...but we are not. It's never happened.
    Even when I go on retreat with 120 other students, reading from the same text under the same teacher, we still do not see eye to eye.
    We nod and smile and move on.
    Practitioners have respectful love, but we don't hang onto one another (though some still try!).

    An understanding of evil will depend on our point of view. Evil, according to this thread, is banal. It's to do with our selfishness.
    It starts with an attraction to something outside ourselves - “I” want “that”. There is then a short hop to “I desire”, to “I must have”,
    to excitement, to greed, to hatred, to evil = causing harm. This happens almost instantaneously, but it all comes from a projected
    'self' identity which requires protection, and so aggression is employed in some form to defend this puffed-up 'me'.

    So how does this come about? It's quite simple, and we do it all the time. We lose our true being in expression.
    Our true being is empty, uncontaminated, intelligent space. It just is. This is absolute truth: mind essence.

    Within this space, thoughts occur - an imagined identity.

    When our absolute nature identifies strongly with thoughts (conventional reality), although absolute reality is present all the time,
    we forget it and we cling to the seeming reality. Because of this confusion, we arrive at two selves - a duality.

    Philosophers argue. Practitioners do not.

    There is oneness, but it is the unity of relative truth and absolute truth: by virtue of one, the other is known.
    It's a bit like these words on the clear screen.

    We experience conflict because even though we believe we are the thoughts (to be defended), we are aware that there is more to us,
    and that makes us feel uncomfortable (and so, defensive).

    In the video of the Milgram experiment, the man knew his actions were wrong (evil) but he still did complied.
    Torture is happening every day in this world. Abuse is happening every day...even on forums. This is the Age of Strife - the Kali Yuga.

    If we want to know how things are, all we have to do is take a closer, honest and unbiased look.
    Evil is just an exaggerated, controlling emotion, which can be triggered by other individuals.
    We therefore need to tame our mind - control our mind - instead of someone else doing it for us.
    Thus, we control the situation, rather then the situation controlling us.

    The Buddha said,
    Do good
    Do no evil
    Tame the mind.






    In ancient times, truth was presented with a mere gesture. Now we have to use a lot of words.




    Tony
    www.buddhainthemud.com

  33. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Tony For This Post:

    joeecho (15th May 2014), loungelizard (15th May 2014), minkton (13th May 2014), pabranno (15th May 2014), Shezbeth (15th May 2014), william r sanford72 (27th May 2014), Wind (13th May 2014)

  34. Link to Post #20
    UK Avalon Member
    Join Date
    24th March 2011
    Age
    73
    Posts
    3,947
    Thanks
    7,148
    Thanked 23,233 times in 3,618 posts

    Default Re: The Banality of Evil

    Quote Posted by Milneman (here)
    Pure awareness: is this purely empirical?

    Every thing comes to pass: what about what doesn't or can't? I'm playing with the idea of the many worlds theory. Consider this possibility: a world which exists among the many worlds where NO other possible worlds can or do exist. It's logically possible. I think according to many worlds theory, it's even possible. But the point is if that is possible, namely a world can exist where no other possible worlds exists, then there CAN only be one world right? Which means we either exist in it, or we don't exist at all.



    From an absolute level, nothing can be done for selfish gain: everything has to be for the benefit of others.

    I agree in principle.

    Except for one small detail.

    "This world will always have suffering in it because sentient beings are deluded, and ignorant of their true nature."

    (Tony, I really like you a lot! I'm making trouble for you with no animosity here. This is good cafe metaphysics only, minus the cafe or wine )

    IF that statement is true, then how can you be justified in saying that the reason we're here is to learn, clarify and evolve? Could this not be another aspect of our delusion? How, in other words, can we know with certainty what our true nature is if by our nature we can't know our true nature?



    Dear Milneman,


    Everything comes to pass, no thing lasts, and has no absolute reality.
    Everything relies on a cause and condition to come into being.
    Everything only has a seeming reality.

    So what is reality?
    What is our true nature?
    How can we know it?

    Simple: It's awareness. Without awareness no thing would be known.

    However, that is only our starting point. We are all as sentient beings aware,
    even the reptilian brain has awareness.

    For the next stage, we should probably have a special group, to keep our focus,
    but here goes.


    Meditation is about becoming familiar with this awareness, resting in awareness.
    The next stage is to be introduced to the nature or essence of this awareness.
    And guess what? We find nothing…just awareness…pure awareness.

    We can only see this in practise. We recognise, decide that this is it, and remain
    stable in that recognition. Confidence grows, relief grows (that there is nothing else),
    joy grows, compassion grows.

    In actuality Recognition, confidence, relief, joy and compassion does not grow,
    the doubting obscuration diminish…our true nature has been there all the time.


    Doubt is useful, but at some stage it has to be dropped, as it kills confidence.
    We arrive at confidence in our own good time. Sometime we just recognise,
    sometime the mind need convincing that it recognises what it already knows.


    Life is a transit cafe, held together by confusion.
    Our confusion is our path.
    Part of a prayer is…may confusion dawn as wisdom.
    When we learn that we arrive at clarity and evolve.


    buddhainthemud is all about our confusion dawning as wisdom.
    In the very first instant of a poisonous emotion arising,
    that very energy is our wisdom nature.


    Understanding that we arrive at the unity of the two truths.





    Tony
    Last edited by Tony; 13th May 2014 at 09:22.
    www.buddhainthemud.com

  35. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Tony For This Post:

    joeecho (15th May 2014), loungelizard (15th May 2014), minkton (13th May 2014), Shezbeth (15th May 2014), william r sanford72 (27th May 2014)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 10 1 10 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts