The Banality of Evil

[Davidallany]

One has two options when facing evil, running away or facing it. Running away means to lose your ground to the bigger and meaner opponent. Facing it means to have a fight on all levels with the opponent. Both options spring from fear. The fear that you'll be dragged back to the darkness that you've just crawled out of, fear of getting bad karma, fear of letting your mind at large and not being able to control it, fear to hurt others, yourself, humanity,etc.
But to the one who knows, who has crossed the bridge fear doesn't exist, only love does.
Love can turn into evil if one gets too attached to it.

[Shezbeth]

Posted by Agape (here)
at the time of its origination , 'law' was thought / meant to be probably the 'golden means' , peace brining law , knowledge that made a distinction between 'civilised world' and 'barbarian , lawless society' .

To this day .. if you speak of 'free society' , in terms of law , money, absence of authorities to people for example in India, they're still painfully aware that attempt for 'free society' would automatically result in immediate looting of resources by hords of under-educated yet desiring people .. surrounding us by multitudes .

My point is that what you say may be true, especially given a particular interpretation (subjective translation, see above) of the histories,... but how often (especially on Avalon) do we come across histories that are inconsistent with what was likely to have occurred? History is written by the ones in power, the 'winners' so to speak. While the 'law' may have been written with good intentions, it is equally likely and of greater consistency to assume that the law was written to establish and further the agendas of those in power/control.

Individuals - when given the choice - are to a degree predisposed to assume, intuit, and transfer (psychologically) ideas of benevolence and benefit to the things and ideas they are convicted to. One who is particularly enamored to an ideology will tend to favor in their observations as opposed to analyze and critically assess.

Moreover, while the wanton looting and pillaging you refer to is a possible outcome of a free society, that is what one gets when a society has become overly passive and non-assertive. Additionally, is it better to have unrestricted taking, or just for those in power? We ARE talking about the land of Castes after all,....

[Agape]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)
So am I correct in interpreting that a word can mean almost anything one wants it to mean?

A perfect recipe for agendas and authoritarianism, and a great challenge to pin down an actionable tradition don't you think?

And again, in strict sense ... not . Semantic interpretation has to follow epistemological meaning , not deny it .
If you play with linguistic roots incorrectly , but keep to the meaning of the term it may be considered minor mistake , but even if you recite the whole scripture by heart and misunderstand its meaning - twist 'good' to 'bad' and vice versa, it's a major fault .
Again, you may ask .. who is the authority to proclaim what's right and wrong ..

you may well show superior understanding that surpasses some of your ancestors but most probably, not all of them ..

since the language, grammar and laws you follow were also , at least partially taught to you by them .

Our 'modern culture' in some of its extremes is well known for 'cutting itself from its roots' , if not turning against our own wisdom ,

wisdom we share beyond words with our elders . If there was no common understanding to base our continuity upon, human society as we know it would be destined to fall to pieces ..


Is that what you see coming ...

[Shezbeth]

Posted by Agape (here)
If there was no common understanding to base our continuity upon, human society as we know it would be destined to fall to pieces .. Is that what you see coming ...

The common understanding you refer to hasn't exactly resulted in much in the way of progress, at least not insomuch as enabling those on the bottom to achieve a greater degree of participation and prosperity. Further, I wouldn't rule out that 'falling to pieces' is an inevitable result of relying on doing things the way they have been done, and moreover falling to pieces depends on perspective. If the lower classes were allowed to prosper and share the benefits of existence, those of the upper classes might certainly consider it a 'falling to pieces', but that is a biased interpretation.

[Agape]

I don't think that either , single individual can give a full answer / recipe to the question , the answer truly rests in each and all of us ,
but 'common wisdom' , the 'law of One' , sense of Unity , singleness of goal .. is as essential to individuals as it is to the larger human whole ,
and the point is not in either-or , the ability to absorb /embrace differences and find their place in the larger picture is in my opinion , core factor of survival of future human civilisation...

Common understanding 'has not resulted in much progress' , true .. but where would we be without it , we'd have killed each other for all our disagreements and difference, long ago.

[Milneman]

Posted by Davidallany (here)
One has two options when facing evil, running away or facing it. Running away means to lose your ground to the bigger and meaner opponent. Facing it means to have a fight on all levels with the opponent. Both options spring from fear. The fear that you'll be dragged back to the darkness that you've just crawled out of, fear of getting bad karma, fear of letting your mind at large and not being able to control it, fear to hurt others, yourself, humanity,etc.
But to the one who knows, who has crossed the bridge fear doesn't exist, only love does.
Love can turn into evil if one gets too attached to it.

Before one makes that choice, one had to have the level headedness to define what evil is. Where does that knowledge come from? How do we innately know certain things are evil, and certain things are good? And why do some see the opposite?

And how does one cross the bridge, as it were, if one cannot see the bridge exists to begin with, or even more interesting, if one doesn't want to cross the bridge and simply denies that it exists because the current state of awareness seems to be of more benefit.

There are all really good statements, and this thread is full of them. But practically? I'm going back to the rubber band and telling the truth. You master that, you can master anything (especially yourself!).

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by Agape (here)

Posted by Shezbeth (here)
So am I correct in interpreting that a word can mean almost anything one wants it to mean?

A perfect recipe for agendas and authoritarianism, and a great challenge to pin down an actionable tradition don't you think?

And again, in strict sense ... not . Semantic interpretation has to follow epistemological meaning , not deny it .
If you play with linguistic roots incorrectly , but keep to the meaning of the term it may be considered minor mistake , but even if you recite the whole scripture by heart and misunderstand its meaning - twist 'good' to 'bad' and vice versa, it's a major fault .
Again, you may ask .. who is the authority to proclaim what's right and wrong ..

you may well show superior understanding that surpasses some of your ancestors but most probably, not all of them ..

since the language, grammar and laws you follow were also , at least partially taught to you by them .

Our 'modern culture' in some of its extremes is well known for 'cutting itself from its roots' , if not turning against our own wisdom ,

wisdom we share beyond words with our elders . If there was no common understanding to base our continuity upon, human society as we know it would be destined to fall to pieces ..


Is that what you see coming ...

What I see coming (here at least) seems to be elders "walking away" because they are found to be not as wise as they wanted to be seen as, and other elders being pushed out the door because they speak too justly about the elders in the room who are fools. Correct me if I'm wrong?

Atlas, then Aristotle, shrugged.

[Shezbeth]

Posted by Agape (here)
Common understanding 'has not resulted in much progress' , true .. but where would we be without it , we'd have killed each other for all our disagreements and difference, long ago.

THAT sounds alot like a fear-based interpretation; it is certainly within the threshold of possibility, but is only one such possibility. Can one honestly say that is has ever been attempted?

[Milneman]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)

Posted by Agape (here)
Common understanding 'has not resulted in much progress' , true .. but where would we be without it , we'd have killed each other for all our disagreements and difference, long ago.

THAT sounds alot like a fear-based interpretation; it is certainly within the threshold of possibility, but is only one such possibility. Can one honestly say that is has ever been attempted?

I agree, I would think that common understanding, provided it's facing the right direction, would result in infinite progress. Most people simply don't want to look that way.

[Agape]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)

Posted by Agape (here)
Common understanding 'has not resulted in much progress' , true .. but where would we be without it , we'd have killed each other for all our disagreements and difference, long ago.

THAT sounds alot like a fear-based interpretation; it is certainly within the threshold of possibility, but is only one such possibility. Can one honestly say that is has ever been attempted?

Oh no , not 'fear based interpretation', just exaggeration, not meant literally .

I very much guess that over these written means .. finding a 'common agreement' is almost impossible ,
every 'real life agreements' happen between nations, tribes, individuals .. in their presence, face to face communication ,
and that only under the condition that such unnamed individuals actually wish to strike agreement .

To perpetuate disagreement about meaning of everything is easier .. endless .. it's the power of disintegration I'm referring to here versus the struggle for co-creation, agreement or even compromise, not in any strict sense of the word again.

Something I tried to point out earlier in this thread .. the 'clock-wise' , life-building and counter-clockwise , life-essential forces of the universe , both are in us , you may even say and insist 'equally' however ..

the very proof /nature of our existence and presence as semi-intelligent beings seems is in the 'right-turn' of 'holding' things together ..

Before I prove my absence ...

[Agape]

Posted by Milneman (here)

What I see coming (here at least) seems to be elders "walking away" because they are found to be not as wise as they wanted to be seen as, and other elders being pushed out the door because they speak too justly about the elders in the room who are fools. Correct me if I'm wrong?

Atlas, then Aristotle, shrugged.

They're all the same guys, for entertainment and illusory nature of so called 'masses' , it's the masses who are made to see them in different cloaks and disguises .. so they're not bored, and can think .. thinking is always important ..

The problem with any dogmatic authority or teacher is that they teach people to think less , while in fact ... people need to learn more to think on their own ,
for themselves, their own thoughts and wisdoms ..

[Agape]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)

Posted by Agape (here)
If there was no common understanding to base our continuity upon, human society as we know it would be destined to fall to pieces .. Is that what you see coming ...

The common understanding you refer to hasn't exactly resulted in much in the way of progress, at least not insomuch as enabling those on the bottom to achieve a greater degree of participation and prosperity. Further, I wouldn't rule out that 'falling to pieces' is an inevitable result of relying on doing things the way they have been done, and moreover falling to pieces depends on perspective. If the lower classes were allowed to prosper and share the benefits of existence, those of the upper classes might certainly consider it a 'falling to pieces', but that is a biased interpretation.

There's an old saying that pertains to dharma and all kinds of laws and teachings .. 'cleaning the dust by dust' .
It's a common understanding in Buddhist and Hindu teachings that any 'dharma' - or teaching for that purpose - is just a means , the sand to clean the dirty pot ,
here again..literal interpretations of examples are not helpful.

The 'dirt' is as relative as the means that clean it, they're perhaps exactly relative to each other . 'Law' is not a goal, it's a means , teaching is not the goal , it's a means , once it fulfilled it's purpose it can - will be discarded .

In this parallel - establishing laws in society that respects the 'law of jungle' as its natural provenance is seen as a means how to educate such society about their cultivated nature . I suppose it's been so done - or attempted - since times immemorial and it's an endless journey . The power of wilderness .. is enormous .. the beasts we've killed in forests and deserts still seem to live in the hearts and stomachs of men .
In Buddhism and other 'inner teachings' they say 'taming your mind' , and 'recognising illusory - relative nature of phenomena' is important , quite as important it is to human mind looking inside as it is for the mind of scientist who searches relationships between different states of matter, out of them .
Both have their valid role and platform in the makings of human civilisation, in my opinion.

None should be used to control others before true nature of ones own self is recognised and in fact , after and when it is, the need to do that ceases .

If people were taught no outer laws ... would most of them abide in principles of common understanding when meeting other people remains purely hypothetical remark at this point ...

I think it's fairly possible .. if we all were abiding in sort of 'dream time' where words - the roots of understanding and misunderstanding - would never be mixed to the equation...


Sleep talking

[markoid]

reply removed... wrong thread!!

[AutumnW]

Posted by Davidallany (here)
One has two options when facing evil, running away or facing it. Running away means to lose your ground to the bigger and meaner opponent. Facing it means to have a fight on all levels with the opponent. Both options spring from fear. The fear that you'll be dragged back to the darkness that you've just crawled out of, fear of getting bad karma, fear of letting your mind at large and not being able to control it, fear to hurt others, yourself, humanity,etc.
But to the one who knows, who has crossed the bridge fear doesn't exist, only love does.
Love can turn into evil if one gets too attached to it.

I have learned the hard way that you have to discriminate when it comes to really 'loving' individuals in a deep and personal way. You really are putting your peace of mind at risk by having feelings other than wariness and or indifference to some people.

If you discriminate, know who you can safely love to the fullest extent of your nature, you can be free to become "attached". Loving others deeply isn't a spiritual pathology.

[Shezbeth]

I agree with your sentiment AutumnW. Discrimination - up to a certain point - is not about nor implies a lack of love for that discriminated against, it is an expression or love for one's self. IMO one should never be without an equal expression of love for one's self and everyone/thing outside one's self, especially because at the core of everything, everything is connected and one.

If in my discrimination I have expressed - or seemed to express - a lack of love, that is entirely outside my intention, purpose, and pursuit.

[AutumnW]

If you are not loving someone who appears to be parasitic or predatory, you are simply not "feeding" them. It is a neutral position, an indifference, an unwillingness to engage.

And sometimes we feel neutral or indifferent towards the world because we quite honestly are in a flat mood, tired, or wrapped up in more cerebral pursuits.

[Tony]

This seems to be a 'live' thread: it is teaching through the dynamics of the participants.
It may feel challenging or even uncomfortable, but that's evolution for you ;-)

We come from all walks of life, and all have useful contributions to make. The opening post is an attempt to demystify the concept of evil,
and of course there are many levels to understanding this subject. Whatever our understanding, it can always be refined.
For example, this morning, while looking through some notes from a lama from whom I received teachings when in Nepal,
I read, “Ignorance comes from thinking.” On the face of it, not all of us would agree with that, but in pure perception, thought is an impurity
in the clarity of mind essence. This doesn't mean we stop thinking: we just drop any attachment to the thoughts and merely recognise.

In essence, there is no see-er, no meditator and no reference point. Buddha wasn't Buddhist. Christ wasn't Christian.

As a Dharma practitioner, replying on threads is not easy, as one does not with to do harm to one's own mind or that of others.
This avoids collecting more karma - one must tread very carefully to maintain clarity.
There are fourteen questions that even the Buddha wouldn't answer!

As there are readers who may not know much about Buddhism, some things have to be clarified, using reasoning and logic.
Terms may be used which are either literal or expedient. It all depends on the context. Tibetan words have many meanings,
and may not even have an equivalent in English, so we have to rely on translators to do some of the work for us – and not all
translators agree. We can get near enough, but the experience is beyond words. I've spoken to a few translators, and said that
I see a certain topic differently: they might disagree as they are usually academics, but we need confidence in the way we see
things at the moment, but be willing to change as perception alters.

As I have suggested before, we can receive the same teachings from the same teacher, and still not see eye to eye.
As a case in point, at the end of a intensive, month-long silent retreat, a fellow student asked what I had learned.
I replied that the three poisons (desire, aversion and ignorance) were in fact the three kayas
(empty essence, cognisant nature and unconfined compassion), to which he said, “That's a bit far-fetched!” So be it.

Our understanding is an expression of the 'vehicle' we are traversing. There are many traditions and schools in Tibetan Buddhism
which emphasise different aspects and approaches. To facilitate understanding, there are nine 'vehicles' or levels, each using the
same words but with different meanings: as we practise, our perception changes. This is why Dharma students have to be careful
to whom they are talking and what they talk about, as it's so easy to be at cross purposes.

The title of the opening post is The Banality of Evil. This is the impurity in the mind, that obscures the purity of mind essence.
We can deal with this by recognising the purity of mind essence, which itself recognises the impurity.

Here is a prayer some of us say every morning, to remind ourselves what we are about:

May the precious Bodhichitta*
Arise where it has not arisen.
Where it has arisen may it not decay
But increase further and further.

May the precious view of emptiness**
Arise where it has not arisen.
Where it has arise may it not decay
But increase further and further.

May the precious view of non-violence***
Arise where it has not arisen.
Where it has arisen may it not decay
But increase further and further.


*Bodhichitta (caring for others more than oneself).
There are two aspects to Bodhichitta - absolute and relative.
Absolute bodhichitta corresponds to Emptiness.
Relative bodhichitta corresponds to Compassion.

Bodhi means our ‘enlightened essence’ and chitta means ‘heart’ or 'mind': it is translated as ‘the heart of enlightened mind’.
Arousing bodhichitta is for the sake of others.

Relative bodhichitta is the compassionate wish to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all living beings and to train
in the methods to achieve that aim.

Absolute bodhichitta is the direct insight into the absolute nature of things.

This may seem strange, but absolute bodhichitta has to come before relative bodhichitta!

ChogyamTrungpa wrote:
“Compassion automatically invites you to relate with people, because you no longer regard people as a drain on your energy.
They recharge your energy, because in the process of relating with them you acknowledge your wealth, your richness.
So, if you have difficult tasks to preform, such as dealing with people or life situations, you do not feel you are running out
of resources. Each time you are faced with a difficult task, it presents itself as a delightful opportunity to demonstrate your
riches, your wealth. There is no feeling of poverty at all in this approach to life.”


** Emptiness: primordial purity, free from elaborations.

*** Non-violence: causing no harm to self and other – compassion.





Tony

[Shezbeth]

In contrast to my most recent statement, you might notice that the 'teaching' of half the participants is that the 'teaching' you are promoting is abject nonsense.

For example, the quote of "Ignorance comes from thinking" can be said to be true in some cases, but not all cases. In many cases ignorance comes from a lack of thinking, or an unwillingness to think. Yet another example of a phenomenon that is observable in some cases being taken beyond the context by which it can be appropriately applied. This is the core of much of the expressed opposition, that many of the things that are purported to being true are not true. How can speaking untruth be said to be teaching?

[Mac]

I haven't read all the thread yet so apologies (i will) Just when you say love what do you mean, as the love each discipline/tradition speaks about is not human love in the commonly understood way.It is a different state completely and it is impossible to convey and has to be experienced ie the awakened/natural state which comes with/after the illumination/light. Also to try explain that you have the same love/compassion towards the complete stranger (no matter who or what they are) as you have to your own wife and children scares people to death..but that is what we experience whilst in that state of being.
Very hard to maintain in today's society for all-sorts of reasons.Also it's a minefield discussing this due to understandable angst and peoples egos so a tentative post this 8).
In regards to teachers and disciplines i found you have to destroy your discipline/religion and teacher eventually to progress (childhood of R.C mine). Then once you have been where the teacher has been you respect them again as you see it..know it and understand.Any religion or recognised practices can deliver it or none as i did it.I have come to Buddhism ,Hinduism,real Christianity and others after the fact as they all ring true after enlightenment.
Tony makes a great point about the pitfalls of talking about this both to your own well being and others if they can't rise above self interest.YYMV and just my unqualified opinion. Peace ................ ps thread read thanks.

[Shezbeth]

I recall a story I heard many years go about two brothers.

One spent his life traveling the world, speaking and interacting with a great many people and having an incredibly vast series of experiences.

His brother spent his life wandering about his garden, tending to it, and observing it.

In the course of their lives, they both learned much.

[Tony]

Firstly, we have to identify the problem, and then we can heal.
The problem itself is teaching us something: the problem is our own reactions.
In that moment, we lose awareness, being blinded by our own conceit.

The only reality is our own awareness, as that never changes.
The more abuse, the more we can see our reactions and
the more the compassion arises - both for our own reactions,
and for those of others.
Simple....that's if we see!

This is the meaning of Gampopa's wish: “May confusion dawn as wisdom.”
Without pure awareness, everything is confused.




“To be” aware or “Not to be” aware.

That is the question!

Most of the time, we are unaware of our own awareness.
We are a little too busy being aware of something
- usually our own puffed-ness – rather than the awareness itself.

Meditation is just being...just being aware of awareness.
In the moment of being aware of awareness, there is no meditator
and no meditation.

Being aware is like switching on the light.
We take it for granted that the light is on.
Well...it is, but we just don't notice it.

Once we recognise the light – awareness - the dark is clearly seen – unawareness.

Our true nature recognises an untruth. In our present state, the light of our true nature
sees an untruth: our practice is to know the nature of this untruth, and find confidence
in the recognition, which leads to compassion. All that matters is pure awareness,
which is reality. In that confidence lies unconditional happiness that no outside force can disturb.

“May confusion dawn as wisdom.” We realise this when we see that the confusion never existed:
we were the wisdom all along. But as sentient beings, the confusion is the catalyst leading to understanding.



Tony