The Banality of Evil

[Tony]

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

[Tony]

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

yr5cjyokVUs


Tony

[PixieDust]

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!

[Flash]

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.

[Milneman]

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?? ;)

[Milneman]

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. ;)

[Tony]

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

[Tony]

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 :o ...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 :cool:

Tony

[Milneman]

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..... ;) ;)

[Tony]

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

[Milneman]

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.

:suspicious:

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?

[joeecho]

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?

[Milneman]

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! ;)

[gnostic9]

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!

[joeecho]

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!

:cheers:

[Shezbeth]

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


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.


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.


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

[joeecho]

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


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.

[joeecho]

1+1=1 ; 1/2=2

What a beautiful mind you have! :crazy_pilot: ;)

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??

[Tony]

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. :o




Tony

[Tony]

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.

:suspicious:

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

[Tony]

Be totally confused!


In the last verse in one of Gampopa's prayers he states:
“May confusion dawn as wisdom.”
That, in a nutshell, is the Buddha's teaching on the two truths!

Our present state of mind is confusion about our true nature.
Upon investigating that confusion, we discover its true nature - wisdom.

This is because we suddenly realise that that which is investigating
the confusion is the light of wisdom itself.

There you have it.

“But...but...there is still confusion!”
Ah, that is only a residue from the past, caught up in our subtle body
- our feelings - and in our minds - our fixations.
Confusion will come, and we practise letting it go.

There you have it.

“But...but...stuff is still happing to me!”
Ah, that is the playing out of our past karma - the effects of our actions.
In not reacting, our karma is exhausted.

There you have it.

“But...but... I like it all the way it is...all is well!”
Ah, then you are not totally confused yet;)


PS Just so you’re not confused :rolleyes:
“totally confused” refers to not holding onto any cosy concepts whatsoever.

[Tony]

The Veil of Evil.

We are not talking about reptilian blood ripping monsters, it's more mundane than that.

We are talking about ego. This is a picture we create about ourselves to which we cling,
with 'me' at the centre. Because of this, we lack empathy.
The veil is our bias concepts that surround our true being. That clinging veil is ego.

The stronger the ego the more the hate.



Tony
(I'm only writing this as I'm experiencing some hatred on the forum.)

[Shezbeth]

With all due respect Tony, you might find your audience more receptive if you were less insistent on the idea that your theory is fact. Further, a convincing assertion involves more than loose interpretation and vague inferences.

For one, am I to interpret that I am 'a philosopher' and not 'a practitioner' (of what exactly, there's no apparent explanation!) simply because I disagree? I don't doubt you may be onto something, as I am not wholly opposed to your argument, but the fact remains you are attempting to pass subjective perception off as objectve truth.


All we can do is present a view
We are not all one, as we see reality differently.
Divergent perspectives does not mean there is not an inherent unity in everyone:

<:~We are all 1 tribe~:>

Show me an awareness outside a physical form and therein you will have something capable of taking an unbiased look and everything else is in some way conditioned by its experiences (even if not conscious of it) and thereby possesses some form of bias; it is endemic to the concept.

If we want to know how things are, all we have to do is take a closer, honest and unbiased look.

You even allude to this yourself!:

Everything relies on a cause and condition to come into being.

Causality and circumstance from which we originate is equally that from which bias originates, and no amount of imaginative posturing or biased conviction can change that. In a sense, we are all expressions of bias that originates with those who conceived us and continues consequent to our experience. Again, you allude to this with the following:

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.

If we are pure awareness - which you have avoided responding to my earlier inquiry regarding - why is it in the brain as you mention above? And why do you suggest that doubt needs to be dropped; absence of doubt leads unerringly to authoritarianism.

The dictatorial tone is not in any way assisted by the inference that disagreement can only come from simpering contention. That you are convinced of your position is quite evident, but assuming that your own (biased) perceptions are universally applicable to others is,... premature in the least.


we are involved in a mind game and we don't see the ego at work - or we choose not to

That is quite the double edged sword there. :becky:

If I have somehow misinterpreted your meaning, I welcome biased correction. Still, allow this post to stand as evidence that in the very least, the perception of efficacy is not always equatable to efficacy.

[Tony]

Thank you for a perfect illustration.


Tony

[Delight]

I apologize if this is slightly off topic.

This article is one I read before.

http://www.carrolldaleshort.com/Columns_EvilIsATrueThing.html

It addresses the experience a columnist remembered from a brief encounter. Interviewing someone who had committed a "hate crime", the writer CD Short felt briefly an overshadowing presence of evil in the room. He had no real way to make sense of this "shadow". This led later to considering. How "ordinary", how banal and even boring the perpetrators of very evil acts may appear and "what else is there"?

Through M. Scott Peck's work, Mr. Short noticed that often the relatives of those who "act out" seem "normal". However, they have no empathy for the effects of their actions. They were called by him "People of the Lie". One incident is highlighted in the article when the parents of a boy who committed suicide gave his brother the 22 gauge gun used, for Christmas.

"The Banality of Evil" a phrase coined during the Nuremberg Trials was observed. Mild looking bureaucrats actually carried out the Holocaust. They cared most for "doing a good job" and had no deep seeming feeling for what they worked towards.

Discussing this in terms of ego and the words used here seems in itself distancing as people then argue about the theory. Also, is the "evil" an external force or the way we are trained out of empathy? is it that the separation from self creates a character capable of doing what we "think" we must do?

In my own life, I believe I also participated in "evil" and felt horrified. In fact I have not resolved how to both be in the system and be humane to myself and others. I have rejected the system, not knowing how to behave true to my feelings.

One of my worst memories is being forced at a very young age to have a "shot" and no matter how I screamed, I was forced "for my own good". This is such a 'small" thing but it has stayed with me. As an RN, my job meant I "Must" give shots, draw blood (no matter how many times I missed), make people do things "for their own good". Initially almost fainting at the site of wounds and blood, I numbed. I lost much feeling through my work. I "wanted to do a good job".

In the whole SYSTEM people feed families working in,"business" is more concerned with some "idea" we must cooperate and "have a good review doing" than how people feel about it. Is business IN GENERAL overshadowed by evil?

In the case of the article I attached, years later, the man who participated in the "hate crime" had the idea he had done it for "a good reason".

So finally my interest is less about what caused the problem. Could it be if we can just say No to working in these "belief structures", we might find evil is not OUR ego but our insanity secondary to forced trauma and traumatizing of others? I would really like to demonstrate we are not beholden to these systems that seem to pummel the sense of human empathy creating "People of the Lie".



I had gone to Elmore after all those years to confront the notion of evil head-on, it was clear that at the last minute I had blinked.

I call the warden's office, and arrange to talk briefly with Clayborn on the phone.

When Clayborn gets on the line, and after we've exchanged hellos, I explain to him that I was young and impressionable when I first saw him in the Jefferson County jail. Still, I tell him, I haven't been able to shake the memory of being very afraid--not of him, but of some force or presence I sensed in the cell with us. I ask him if he remembers anything like that.

"Yes, certainly," he says. "I was being guided by a mystical force."

The silence is mine. Finally, I ask, "Was it an evil force?"

"Oh, no It was not negative. It was constructive. Even though it caused pain, it was something that had to be done. That much I know, sir."

Maybe there is a force of evil. But we would have to "believe" it is for a "good reason" we cooperate.....

[AutumnW]

In my own experience people who are, 'holier than thou' and genuflect about evil, the ego, and yadayada....a lot are often nasty themselves. Those who seem to be most focused on vanquishing the evil in others and 'eliminating ego' are surprisingly blind to their own natures.

I have only come in to close contact with one person I would define as truly 'evil' in my life. He was intentionally destructive, a lost cause and let's just throw in 'son of Satan', for fun.

Most people who are annoying, nasty, bitter, creepy are pitiful and often need our love, if we have the strength and forbearance to give it. It is their Karma to receive it and ours to give it, if possible.

[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.

Is that an absolute reality?

Chinchin ole chap! :D

[AutumnW]

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!

In that case, take truth and lies...by joining them together into a stew of half-truths, how would that improve anything?

[Tony]

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.

Is that an absolute reality?

Chinchin ole chap! :D


Yes!Yes!yes!
It is THE absolute reality.

If one could just suspend one's being, this is pure awareness of just being,
and speed up the whole of the phenomenal universe (like a fast frame movie)
then everything would be flashing by in constant change, being created, dwelling and dissolving.
Everything would be seen as having no permanent status, therefore being empty is true reality.
That impermanence is every thing's reality.

While this is all going on, pure being, pure uncontaminated being, just is, being aware!
Just looking out of this eyes and remembering when I was a child, that awareness has never changed.
It was only when I had the 'pointing out instruction' that I recognised pure awareness,
which has been there all the time.

It is because we as ordinary sentient beings get caught up in our likes and dislike, that we suffer,
and go on suffering.
This is all due to ignorance of our true being. We torment ourselves and those around us.
All the ideas we hold onto, are also empty of any true permanent existence.

However saying all this, we still have to see it for ourselves.
That is, if we truly want to see…ego does not like looking outside its fixated ideas.

When we can let go of everything, we see clearly.

This seems logical but there those here who will still hate it. That's why this sort of thing
isn't really practical on a conspiracy forum …everything is suspect.
It's all in the mind!



Tony
(I have to say sorry for all the words, as there are those who complain I write too much…?)

[Tony]

Finding the inner teacher to cut through our selfish evil intent

The four types of teacher

1. The first teacher is the person who directly points out the essence of your mind.
2. The second teacher is a lineage scriptorial teacher (person or text or manual to study).
3. The third teacher is the inner teacher (the first two reveal the inner teacher:
you realise your inner knowledge and wisdom through the experience of meditation/the direct pointing out)
4. The fourth teacher is the symbolic teacher: every situation - the whole of this illusory temporary creation - reflects our true essence.

The first type of teacher becomes your root teacher: it is they who genuinely point out the nature of your mind.
When this happens, there is no doubt, and we develop a deep appreciation and devotion.

The second is your lineage teacher, which can be backup, technical information.


The third is your inner teacher, pure perception.
The first two types of teachers enhance and give confidence in realising the inner teacher, which is then realised in meditation.

The fourth is the symbolic teacher, or the outer teacher.
Everyday situations are telling us something – to be more precise, so is every moment.
Karma is constantly being created, reinforced or exhausted.
Once the inner teacher is realised, the outer teacher can be utilised.
We learn how to dance with the relative and absolute worlds.
Everything is seen as the pure world.
This is because everything arises within emptiness.
So everything is a constant reminder - even negative emotions.
The relative reflects the absolute, and the absolute is reflected in the relative.
The emotions are seen as wisdoms, so this life is seen as a pure mandala.


(Just as a matter of interest, I am not a teacher, I do not have students.OH yes, one... I am a student of my inner teacher).:boink:



Tony

[Shezbeth]

being empty is true reality. [...] All the ideas we hold onto, are also empty of any true permanent existence. [...] When we can let go of everything, we see clearly. [...] This seems logical but there those here who will still hate it. [...] It's all in the mind!

So,... all the ideas are empty, but being empty is true reality. Supposedly beyond impermanence is pure awareness, but that is its self just an idea; which are empty, but emptiness is still true reality.
:doh:

Do you see how this doesn't work? It isn't that 'some' hate it, it is that some lack the credulity to take your word for it given that it fails to withstand the test of reason. You're absolutely right that it is all in the mind though, which is why what is true for one person is not true for another, and yet neither person's perception of truth is 'more' true than the other's when dealing with ideas and theoretical constructs.

I don't doubt that this 'reasoning' works for you, but there are those for whom it simply doesn't fly.

Additionally, there is at least one more type of teacher - and perhaps one day you may realize that! - but your mind seems quite made up (no less so than mine) so I will leave you to it.

:yo:

[AutumnW]

Hi Tony, I have to apologize for coming on too strong in the protectors group the other day. It wasn't hatred, it was irritation, profound annoyance -- with your ideas. I was a bitch and that's never a good thing. But I am not evil nor do I feel any kind of hatred for you. I just really dislike some aspects of Eastern mysticism. I find some of the ideas contradictory, meaningless, and potentially very negative. For example, the idea that a strong ego is a bad thing. Actually, a weak inflated ego is a problem and aiming for no ego will land you in a psych ward. Schizophrenics experience no ego, the unself--not cool.

[Tony]

Hi Tony, I have to apologize for coming on too strong in the protectors group the other day. It wasn't hatred, it was irritation, profound annoyance -- with your ideas. I was a bitch and that's never a good thing. But I am not evil nor do I feel any kind of hatred for you. I just really dislike some aspects of Eastern mysticism. I find some of the ideas contradictory, meaningless, and potentially very negative. For example, the idea that a strong ego is a bad thing. Actually, a weak inflated ego is a problem and aiming for no ego will land you in a psych ward. Schizophrenics experience no ego, the unself--not cool.


Dear AutumnW,
I truly respect your passion.
Thanks for that, I know how difficult it was.

The definition of of ego in the west and east is not the same. In the west, we get our ego pumped up for us:
a strong feeling of me. And yes, we do need a bit of ego in order to function and be a healthy human being.

I can only talk from a Buddhist point of view: unfortunately one needs to have studied Buddhism at bit to
understand what on earth they're talking about! There are many subtle issues, and different traditions
do not totally agree - hence the different traditions. This drove me mad for years! Much of the confusion
was to do with translating languages and meaning. There are subtleties here which take time to explain,
and it all depends to whom one is talking.

In Buddhist Vajrayana tradition, it is said the bigger the ego, the bigger the enlightenment!
But this has to do with understanding the two truths: relative truth and absolute truth.
And having intense emotions, intelligence and compassion.
There is a shock factor that suddenly bursts our bubble...a realisation that reoccurs.

We all have innate intelligence and passion, which can be seen as wisdom,
but the emotions normally take over because of an over-reactive ego.
I cannot begin to tell you how angry I get...(ask the wife ;-) )
This is why my spiritual guide suggested wrathful deity practice :-)


Tony

[Tony]

being empty is true reality. [...] All the ideas we hold onto, are also empty of any true permanent existence. [...] When we can let go of everything, we see clearly. [...] This seems logical but there those here who will still hate it. [...] It's all in the mind!

So,... all the ideas are empty, but being empty is true reality. Supposedly beyond impermanence is pure awareness, but that is its self just an idea; which are empty, but emptiness is still true reality.
:doh:

Do you see how this doesn't work? It isn't that 'some' hate it, it is that some lack the credulity to take your word for it given that it fails to withstand the test of reason. You're absolutely right that it is all in the mind though, which is why what is true for one person is not true for another, and yet neither person's perception of truth is 'more' true than the other's when dealing with ideas and theoretical constructs.

I don't doubt that this 'reasoning' works for you, but there are those for whom it simply doesn't fly.

Additionally, there is at least one more type of teacher - and perhaps one day you may realize that! - but your mind seems quite made up (no less so than mine) so I will leave you to it.

:yo:


Hello Shezbeth,
Pure awareness is only recognised in practice, and therefore provable.
Without awareness we would not know anything.
All one has to do is be aware of awareness.
To do that we have to stop everything and look.

In the stillness of meditation when aware of awareness, we notice nothing
is happening, just awareness. We are being aware. However this is still a duality.

With guidance we begin or suddenly recognise that 'we' have melted into awareness.
It is uncontaminated awareness -empty of other.

Once one realises this a thousand Buddhas could not shake us.
Because of that true confidence arise, joy arises, relief arises and
unshakeable compassion arise.

This is merely one of many presentations to discover ultimate truth.
The ultimate truth is within the relative truth.

If we are satisfied then we should be happy.
If we are dissatisfied we can change.
If we change we can refine.

Ultimately we all seek unconditional happiness,
which expresses itself in unconditional love.





With much respect,
Tony

[loungelizard]

With all due respect Tony, you might find your audience more receptive if you were less insistent on the idea that your theory is fact.



The ideas that are being shared here are not his own personal theories: I'm pretty sure that he is speaking of the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism, and the Madhayamaka school that was expounded by the Indian philosopher, Nagajuna. I've been studying this on and off for a few years now - and it takes a while to get your head around it. It's been fiercely debated and discussed for centuries :rolleyes:

In Madhayamaka, it is said that all phenomena are empty of any inherent existence because they came into being through causes and conditions: they have "dependant origination" and therefore no reality of their own.

Whatever is dependent arising
We declared that to be emptiness.

That is dependant designation,
And is itself the middle way.
Nagarjuna

It is also known as the Middle Way, between eternalise and nihilism, and at the core is the understanding of the two truths (absolute and relative truth).
The actual experience is beyond words, and that that's why it's difficult to communicate…

[yelik]

From a practical point of view are the illuminati evil for wanting to ensure the survival of mankind against certain threats which may lead to the extinction of life on earth? Is is wrong to build deep underground bases, creat a seed bank and colonies the Moon and Mars?

Don't misunderstand me, I believe that anyone, including aliens which intentionally causes harm to man or society is universally wrong.

[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.

Is that an absolute reality?

Chinchin ole chap! :D


Yes!Yes!yes!
It is THE absolute reality.

If one could just suspend one's being, this is pure awareness of just being,
and speed up the whole of the phenomenal universe (like a fast frame movie)
then everything would be flashing by in constant change, being created, dwelling and dissolving.
Everything would be seen as having no permanent status, therefore being empty is true reality.
That impermanence is every thing's reality.

While this is all going on, pure being, pure uncontaminated being, just is, being aware!
Just looking out of this eyes and remembering when I was a child, that awareness has never changed.
It was only when I had the 'pointing out instruction' that I recognised pure awareness,
which has been there all the time.

It is because we as ordinary sentient beings get caught up in our likes and dislike, that we suffer,
and go on suffering.
This is all due to ignorance of our true being. We torment ourselves and those around us.
All the ideas we hold onto, are also empty of any true permanent existence.

However saying all this, we still have to see it for ourselves.
That is, if we truly want to see…ego does not like looking outside its fixated ideas.

When we can let go of everything, we see clearly.

This seems logical but there those here who will still hate it. That's why this sort of thing
isn't really practical on a conspiracy forum …everything is suspect.
It's all in the mind!



Tony
(I have to say sorry for all the words, as there are those who complain I write too much…?)

But...But...But...!

If there is at least one absolute reality, then it's possible that there are more than one!

[Shezbeth]

Against my better judgement I have been asked to continue this discourse. :smash:


The ideas that are being shared here are not his own personal theories: I'm pretty sure that he is speaking of the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism, and the Madhayamaka school that was expounded by the Indian philosopher, Nagajuna. I've been studying this on and off for a few years now - and it takes a while to get your head around it. It's been fiercely debated and discussed for centuries :rolleyes:

I appreciate that clarification/explanation; I find that much more effective than the solitary (if veiled) "read my blog" statement and the condescending disregard of even the possibility of intelligently motivated disagreement. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the ideas, I am contesting the idea that "This is correct and any diverse opinion is childish/undeveloped" while pointing out that while the description(s) given may make perfect sense to the person who is speaking, they do not effectively assist a diverse individual in reaching the same conclusions.


Pure awareness is only recognised in practice, and therefore provable.
Without awareness we would not know anything.
All one has to do is be aware of awareness.
To do that we have to stop everything and look.

In the stillness of meditation when aware of awareness, we notice nothing
is happening, just awareness. We are being aware. [...]

This is merely one of many presentations to discover ultimate truth.
The ultimate truth is within the relative truth. [...]

Ultimately we all seek unconditional happiness,


Thank you for a perfect illustration.

"I am that which cannot be pointed to and say "I am that"," - Mooji

Is that comparable to what you mean?

I understand a concept of pure awareness, but for one I use vastly different terminology and for two it is not something which I can reasonably conclude as being proven no matter how many experiences I have with it. Thirdly, the pure awareness I am familiar with does not conform to nor justify the expressions you have made regarding it; am I to understand that you have it right and I have it wrong, even though the experiences I have are replicable and consistent? Personally, I am of the mind that we both have it right, but I am not perceiving the same allowance in your iterations.

Moreover, when I am in the stillness of meditation, I notice everything happening (limited by the capabilities of the body) collectively; it is not a closing off of input but a unification and opening to all stimuli including everything that the mind would otherwise ignore/disregard. Awareness (to me) does not mean not experiencing perceptions, it means a vast expansion of perception. Pure awareness then would be the perception/experience of all things which in my experience is a good way to drive one's limited physiological form mad. I'm not saying it is to be avoided - quite the contrary - but that (to turn a phrase) "One should not eat too much sweet honey".


From a practical point of view are the illuminati evil for wanting to ensure the survival of mankind against certain threats which may lead to the extinction of life on earth? Is is wrong to build deep underground bases, creat a seed bank and colonies the Moon and Mars?

If that description were accurate (and the term evil weren't so loaded as has been illustrated) then no the illuminati are not 'evil', but there is far more to the equation than that.

What the illuminati are trying to do is 'preserve mankind and the power structures, the hierarchical slavery, the predation, the vast personal and group agendas, to the exclusion (and extinction) of certain disparate entities/groups'.

This is still not 'evil', because it is so many objective things without applying subjectivity. It is certainly injurious, agreeably biased, undoubtably preferential, and consistently - if selectively - malevolent. I could go on about the objective things it is, which is why I don't agree with the subjective things it may be perceived as. An excellent question IMO, as it alludes to the manner in which subjectivity can be applied to otherwise objective observation.

[minkton]

Tony, I know you've been at this business for some time now, so I ask you : have you got a nice story which illustrates something about absolute truth being disbelieved in by those dwelling in the lower, relative mind, and a shift in perception happening?

I'd love to know a good story, which could illustrate this movement toward the absolute in a way people can relate to. Seems to me a person has to have had a glimpse of it, to have the ability to grasp it, or else have a mental readiness or conceptual receptivity.

Maybe the ground can only be prepared by practice. What's your view on this? Would like to know!

[Tony]

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.

Is that an absolute reality?

Chinchin ole chap! :D


Yes!Yes!yes!
It is THE absolute reality.

If one could just suspend one's being, this is pure awareness of just being,
and speed up the whole of the phenomenal universe (like a fast frame movie)
then everything would be flashing by in constant change, being created, dwelling and dissolving.
Everything would be seen as having no permanent status, therefore being empty is true reality.
That impermanence is every thing's reality.

While this is all going on, pure being, pure uncontaminated being, just is, being aware!
Just looking out of this eyes and remembering when I was a child, that awareness has never changed.
It was only when I had the 'pointing out instruction' that I recognised pure awareness,
which has been there all the time.

It is because we as ordinary sentient beings get caught up in our likes and dislike, that we suffer,
and go on suffering.
This is all due to ignorance of our true being. We torment ourselves and those around us.
All the ideas we hold onto, are also empty of any true permanent existence.

However saying all this, we still have to see it for ourselves.
That is, if we truly want to see…ego does not like looking outside its fixated ideas.

When we can let go of everything, we see clearly.

This seems logical but there those here who will still hate it. That's why this sort of thing
isn't really practical on a conspiracy forum …everything is suspect.
It's all in the mind!



Tony
(I have to say sorry for all the words, as there are those who complain I write too much…?)

But...But...But...!

If there is at least one absolute reality, then it's possible that there are more than one!



An absolute is that which never changes. If you can find anything more absolute than empty cognisance let me know!:o Ah! There is space…but it's not aware.

Tony

[Tony]

Against my better judgement I have been asked to continue this discourse. :smash:


The ideas that are being shared here are not his own personal theories: I'm pretty sure that he is speaking of the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism, and the Madhayamaka school that was expounded by the Indian philosopher, Nagajuna. I've been studying this on and off for a few years now - and it takes a while to get your head around it. It's been fiercely debated and discussed for centuries :rolleyes:

I appreciate that clarification/explanation; I find that much more effective than the solitary (if veiled) "read my blog" statement and the condescending disregard of even the possibility of intelligently motivated disagreement. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the ideas, I am contesting the idea that "This is correct and any diverse opinion is childish/undeveloped" while pointing out that while the description(s) given may make perfect sense to the person who is speaking, they do not effectively assist a diverse individual in reaching the same conclusions.


Pure awareness is only recognised in practice, and therefore provable.
Without awareness we would not know anything.
All one has to do is be aware of awareness.
To do that we have to stop everything and look.

In the stillness of meditation when aware of awareness, we notice nothing
is happening, just awareness. We are being aware. [...]

This is merely one of many presentations to discover ultimate truth.
The ultimate truth is within the relative truth. [...]

Ultimately we all seek unconditional happiness,


Thank you for a perfect illustration.

"I am that which cannot be pointed to and say "I am that"," - Mooji

Is that comparable to what you mean?

I understand a concept of pure awareness, but for one I use vastly different terminology and for two it is not something which I can reasonably conclude as being proven no matter how many experiences I have with it. Thirdly, the pure awareness I am familiar with does not conform to nor justify the expressions you have made regarding it; am I to understand that you have it right and I have it wrong, even though the experiences I have are replicable and consistent? Personally, I am of the mind that we both have it right, but I am not perceiving the same allowance in your iterations.

Moreover, when I am in the stillness of meditation, I notice everything happening (limited by the capabilities of the body) collectively; it is not a closing off of input but a unification and opening to all stimuli including everything that the mind would otherwise ignore/disregard. Awareness (to me) does not mean not experiencing perceptions, it means a vast expansion of perception. Pure awareness then would be the perception/experience of all things which in my experience is a good way to drive one's limited physiological form mad. I'm not saying it is to be avoided - quite the contrary - but that (to turn a phrase) "One should not eat too much sweet honey".


From a practical point of view are the illuminati evil for wanting to ensure the survival of mankind against certain threats which may lead to the extinction of life on earth? Is is wrong to build deep underground bases, creat a seed bank and colonies the Moon and Mars?

If that description were accurate (and the term evil weren't so loaded as has been illustrated) then no the illuminati are not 'evil', but there is far more to the equation than that.

What the illuminati are trying to do is 'preserve mankind and the power structures, the hierarchical slavery, the predation, the vast personal and group agendas, to the exclusion (and extinction) of certain disparate entities/groups'.

This is still not 'evil', because it is so many objective things without applying subjectivity. It is certainly injurious, agreeably biased, undoubtably preferential, and consistently - if selectively - malevolent. I could go on about the objective things it is, which is why I don't agree with the subjective things it may be perceived as. An excellent question IMO, as it alludes to the manner in which subjectivity can be applied to otherwise objective observation.



Dear Shezbeth,
Thank you for a perfect illustration.

"I am that which cannot be pointed to and say "I am that"," - Mooji

Is that comparable to what you mean?

I understand a concept of pure awareness, but for one I use vastly different terminology and for two it is not something which I can reasonably conclude as being proven no matter how many experiences I have with it. Thirdly, the pure awareness I am familiar with does not conform to nor justify the expressions you have made regarding it; am I to understand that you have it right and I have it wrong, even though the experiences I have are replicable and consistent? Personally, I am of the mind that we both have it right, but I am not perceiving the same allowance in your iterations.

Moreover, when I am in the stillness of meditation, I notice everything happening (limited by the capabilities of the body) collectively; it is not a closing off of input but a unification and opening to all stimuli including everything that the mind would otherwise ignore/disregard. Awareness (to me) does not mean not experiencing perceptions, it means a vast expansion of perception. Pure awareness then would be the perception/experience of all things which in my experience is a good way to drive one's limited physiological form mad. I'm not saying it is to be avoided - quite the contrary - but that (to turn a phrase) "One should not eat too much sweet honey".




Agreed!
Until the "I" is removed there can be no pure clarity.
We still have effortless work to do.:cool:



Tony

[Tony]

Tony, I know you've been at this business for some time now, so I ask you : have you got a nice story which illustrates something about absolute truth being disbelieved in by those dwelling in the lower, relative mind, and a shift in perception happening?

I'd love to know a good story, which could illustrate this movement toward the absolute in a way people can relate to. Seems to me a person has to have had a glimpse of it, to have the ability to grasp it, or else have a mental readiness or conceptual receptivity.

Maybe the ground can only be prepared by practice. What's your view on this? Would like to know!



Hello Minkton!
This change in perception will be different for all of us. Sometimes our own stubbornness is the key.
For me it has been many small events that joined up the dots.
Once while at a fencing match, I watched a nifty young fencer, and the thought came to mind…"I envy him."
A colleague standing next to me just said, "I admire that fencer." The effect was shattering.
I was holding onto a very limited view of life, my colleague showed so much generosity.
There are many little lessons like that that lead to refinement.

I suppose it happened during the pointing-out-instruction of the nature of mind given to me by my teacher Tsoknyi Rinpoche.
He did a gesture of raising his hands up facing out, then turned them towards him, then dropped his hand to his thighs.
The hands represented mirrors.

…."That's it!?"

The mind looks, sees and drops.
What if left is pure awareness.

He made us go in and out of pure awareness (in the Dzogchen tradition it is called Rigpa)
so we were sure to know the difference. Actually it was a shock, to realise …"Is that all!"


For something really simple:
What is aware of these word without comment IS purer awareness…absolute truth.
What is commenting on these word is conceptual mind…relative truth.
The ego comes in and puffs itself up wanting to be recognised.
Emptiness doesn't recognise an ego, but it can see it at work!

Thought is samsara (the vicious cycle of sentient existence)
The cessation of thought is nirvana (the end of sentient existence)

As long as we was the word I…I do this and I see that, I understand this,
this is a dualistic understanding. We are still in relative reality/conventional reality.


It is only in meditation that this is clearly recognised.
However if one has had the pointing-out-instruction then one merely remembers to recognise.
Then one can use the negative emotions as a catalyst for recognising wisdom - pure awareness -essence.


I'm sure this isn't much help, we gradually find the truth by clearing up all doubt and obscuration
that we hold onto about for ourselves.



Tony

[loungelizard]

@ Shezbeth

It's interesting to read your personal interpretation of the words of others, but I don't understand why you feel the need to criticise someone who is merely offering their viewpoint. If their writing style is not to your taste but you find the material interesting and wish to engage and discuss, wonderful - maybe it would be possible for you to do that without making personal comments?

For example, I have not found the OP to have a
"condescending disregard for intelligently motivated disagreement" or
"This is correct and any diverse opinion is childish/undeveloped". Where on earth are you getting that from :confused:? On the contrary, it appears that he has been trying to reply to each individual respectfully, whether or not you agree with the content of his writing.

You seem to be feeling criticised -
"am I to understand that you have it right and I have it wrong" - despite the fact that there is no evidence for this.

Tony is doing what he can and I sincerely appreciate his efforts. It may be timely to remember that no one is perfect, and attitude leaks out between the words that all of us write :o.

As an example...you are familiar with Mooji: speaking personally, I have tried to get on with him but find his style to be unhelpful. To use your words,
"they do not effectively assist a diverse individual in reaching the same conclusions." I try not to criticise him personally as being not to my taste: I just don't listen to his teaching.


"…but your mind seems quite made up (no less so than mine)" reminds me of the old story: if two philosophers agree, one of them is not a philosopher. If two siddha disagree, one is not a siddha.

:focus:

[Tony]

This world is like a traffic jam, and we are in it, complaining about the traffic jam.
All these cars and people, all this pollution, all this impatience...and yet we forget
we are part of it. “Well, I'm not involved in wars and killing people!”

Ah! But when we blame others, find fault, hate and fear we create a poisonous
atmosphere, where others who are less mentally stable can then carry out negative acts.
Thus we have helped to create a world of care-less-ness and lack of empathy.


We create our own world, in our minds.


Tony

[shijo]

Still at it oh Monk? Nice to feel your essence here, keep on keeping on,only eternity to go....best regards Shijo the Nichirenite.

[Delight]

This world is like a traffic jam, and we are in it, complaining about the traffic jam.
All these cars and people, all this pollution, all this impatience...and yet we forget
we are part of it. “Well, I'm not involved in wars and killing people!”

Ah! But when we blame others, find fault, hate and fear we create a poisonous
atmosphere, where others who are less mentally stable can then carry out negative acts.
Thus we have helped to create a world of care-less-ness and lack of empathy.


We create our own world, in our minds.

Tony

Your metaphor meant to me that life is like a traffic jam that we forgot we are part of creating. We project onto others in judgement what WE create in the mind. I am reminded of Emmet fox and the "10 commandments" which he described not as "proscriptions" so much as the "sensible" way people behave when they have learned how to "be in the world" but "not of the world". I am not a religious person, Christian or other but consider the truth to be found wherever it is.

I like the book by Emmet Fox and the 10 commandments are found in Exodus....


To begin with, notice which book it comes
in. This extraordinary treatise on human
nature and how it works, and how to find
God, does not come in the book of Genesis
or Numbers or Proverbs. It comes in
Exodus. What does the word “Exodus”
means? It means an exit, a going or a getting
out—getting out of trouble.
An exit is a way out, and with trouble, the
idea is to get out quickly. The book of
Exodus deals with the getting out of
limitation, which means the getting out of
evil, because all evil is limitation of one
kind or another. It shows us how to get out
of our own limitation—our weakness, and
fearfulness, and stupidity, and sin, and
sickness—and become the wonderful thing
that God intended us to be.
The Bible says that we have dominion over
all things—and we have—but we can only
have that dominion when we learn the laws
of life and apply them. There is no dominion
without it.

It is a real dilemma for me at the moment to consider that I would just like to stay home when I am fearful of being a "problem" by driving to work in traffic times and I do desire a helicopter to fly over the "poisonous fumes". I sincerely ask and here are interesting helps that show up.

One is to stop blaming the "subjects" I no longer agree in and praise what I do believe is good. Since I have blamed the medical profession, my friend gave me a great book that now is giving me happy thoughts... of what I support with whole love "You are the Placebo" by Joe Dispenza. ww.amazon.com/You-Are-Placebo-Making-Matter/dp/1401944582



By changing your internal state, you can change your external reality. Dr. Dispenza's new book You Are the Placebo reveals the science of change with remarkable true-life examples where mind has become matter.

[Milneman]

Tony,

I think I might have a good example of what you're talking about.

Five years ago, I began a long arduous journey through an ugly depression, brought on primarily because I was in my late 30's, faced with a choice to grow up and take responsibility for myself, or take the other path of heading back into ignorance and letting other people do it for me. Worse, I was in a condition where I knew I had no choice but to go forward but...I didn't want to.

So for three years I threw hissy fits and temper tantrums that got other people to do my job for me, take care of my responsibilities for me, you name it.

And then! I stumbled on Stephen Law's paper, "The evil god challenge" and my life literally changed over night. For those three years I had been listening to philosophy lectures in iTunes u while at work, mostly to pass the time with something interesting between mental spazmatic attacks of 3-year old self pity. One sleepless night attempting to undo the problem Dr. Law created woke up a part of my brain that, up until then, had been absolutely dormant.

Life, the world, the people in it, and my way of interacting with it and seeing it changed over night. Don't get me wrong! There are still and have been days still where I find myself gritting my teeth and looking for the frying pan to slap someone in the face with, but overall things have improved so much. My brain, to the best of my knowledge, started when I began to use it, to produce the right chemicals for the right moods.....

....or it was a miracle.

I like the latter. ;)

Anyway, this is why I'm chasing after my PhD now! Because when I didn't need the...coverings of the pupal state I had imposed on myself, there was absolute pure freedom to know, to understand. Sheesh guys, I was explaining aspects about Kant to my prof this past semester! That MEANS something! (It means I should know when not to explain things to people who should know them lolol)

Tony's saying, if I read it correctly, that we limit ourselves by what we conceptualize as reality because that conceptualization, not the reality we conceptualize, gives us something we want...even if it means we end up selling our souls for it in the process.

I want that cookie. I know I shouldn't eat that cookie. If I eat that cookie it will ruin my appetite for dinner. If I eat that cookie, Jane will be upset because that is Jane's cookie. But it's a white chocolate chip macadamia nut cookie. It's a big, white chocolate chip macadamia nut cookie. I can smooth it over with Jane. I will just eat less at supper.

I get the cookie.

Jane is also upset.

See? :)

[Tony]

The Value of Evil!

From a spiritual point of view, our enemy is our best friend.
Friends tend to agree with the status quo, but enemies want to provoke reaction.

The power of evil is quite mundane, but has the same value as the negative emotions that arise in us - wisdom!
From a spiritual point of view, in the moment of being confronted by aggression, compassion and gratitude arise.

Compassion, because the evil perpetrator is acquiring more bad karma.
Gratitude, because the evil perpetrator is showing us our reactions...“Ah, there is my pride/anger again.”
For a spiritual practitioner, this opportunity is of the greatest value.
For most people, their 'self' or 'ego' will just retaliate.

Every child is used to be taught by granny, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.”

Reacting is re-acting: it is habitual patterning.
This does not mean we don't respond, but by not re-acting, space is created and clarity can come to the mind (our inner guru).

There is a great difference between theory and practice and practice makes perfect:playball:

The selfish ideas of The New World Order have awoken many. Reacting to them only pulls us into their web.
“What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”....as granny used to say!

The value of evil is that it can have the opposite effect to that intended.



Tony

[minkton]

I suppose it happened during the pointing-out-instruction of the nature of mind given to me by my teacher Tsoknyi Rinpoche.
He did a gesture of raising his hands up facing out, then turned them towards him, then dropped his hand to his thighs.
The hands represented mirrors.

…."That's it!?"

The mind looks, sees and drops.
What if left is pure awareness.

He made us go in and out of pure awareness (in the Dzogchen tradition it is called Rigpa)
so we were sure to know the difference. Actually it was a shock, to realise …"Is that all!"




Ha, this is very good, embodying the process in a physical gesture. Graphic and material, easy to grasp. Hard to do! Thank you.

[giovonni]

Greetings Tony ...

For me its quite simple ~ it's all matter of how one chooses to behave ... :decision:

Note ~ i always enjoy you leading the forum's gray matter in these exercises ... giggle :)

[Tony]

Tony,

I think I might have a good example of what you're talking about.

Five years ago, I began a long arduous journey through an ugly depression, brought on primarily because I was in my late 30's, faced with a choice to grow up and take responsibility for myself, or take the other path of heading back into ignorance and letting other people do it for me. Worse, I was in a condition where I knew I had no choice but to go forward but...I didn't want to.

So for three years I threw hissy fits and temper tantrums that got other people to do my job for me, take care of my responsibilities for me, you name it.

And then! I stumbled on Stephen Law's paper, "The evil god challenge" and my life literally changed over night. For those three years I had been listening to philosophy lectures in iTunes u while at work, mostly to pass the time with something interesting between mental spazmatic attacks of 3-year old self pity. One sleepless night attempting to undo the problem Dr. Law created woke up a part of my brain that, up until then, had been absolutely dormant.

Life, the world, the people in it, and my way of interacting with it and seeing it changed over night. Don't get me wrong! There are still and have been days still where I find myself gritting my teeth and looking for the frying pan to slap someone in the face with, but overall things have improved so much. My brain, to the best of my knowledge, started when I began to use it, to produce the right chemicals for the right moods.....

....or it was a miracle.

I like the latter. ;)

Anyway, this is why I'm chasing after my PhD now! Because when I didn't need the...coverings of the pupal state I had imposed on myself, there was absolute pure freedom to know, to understand. Sheesh guys, I was explaining aspects about Kant to my prof this past semester! That MEANS something! (It means I should know when not to explain things to people who should know them lolol)

Tony's saying, if I read it correctly, that we limit ourselves by what we conceptualize as reality because that conceptualization, not the reality we conceptualize, gives us something we want...even if it means we end up selling our souls for it in the process.

I want that cookie. I know I shouldn't eat that cookie. If I eat that cookie it will ruin my appetite for dinner. If I eat that cookie, Jane will be upset because that is Jane's cookie. But it's a white chocolate chip macadamia nut cookie. It's a big, white chocolate chip macadamia nut cookie. I can smooth it over with Jane. I will just eat less at supper.

I get the cookie.

Jane is also upset.

See? :)



Dear P,
We sold our souls for cookies life times ago, by forgetting who we are.

Yes, we do take our concepts as being real, and because of that we lose sight of reality – that which observes these concepts.

There are those who believe that they are the accumulation of all their concepts, so the more they have, the prouder they are…
“See how many cookies I have!” and so, they are stuck with 'their' cookies...a personality.

Maybe this is the difference between modern psychology and Buddhist psychology.

Buddhist psychology says: perception sees cookies...this stimulus goes to our memory bank for recognition…
then to our judgement centre for valuing...and then we react. This seems to happen instantaneously, and we are stuck in our
sentient loop of life. We do the same things, and say the same things, and when we know someone, we can know most of their
responses...before they do. (how the corporations like that!)

However, if we take a step back to be aware of what is going on in the mind, we become aware of the awareness itself.
Our true nature. Corporations cannot touch that, but they can distract it, and that application of distraction is the touch of evil,
as we are talking about the most precious aspect of human existence.

We can see things from a different perspective, if, instead of merely reacting as programmed by our 'society' we choose not to react.
We are more spacious. This means we don't have to be stuck in a fixed personality...a caricature...a type!
Most sentient beings sold their souls for cookies incarnations ago...or, to me more precise, forgot all about it because of being attracted to cookies.

We can break out of nature and nurture. We may look and sound the same, but we are different...ask the wife ;)

Tony

[Tony]

Greetings Tony ...

For me its quite simple ~ it's all matter of how one chooses to behave ... :decision:

Note ~ i always enjoy you leading the forum's gray matter in these exercises ... giggle :)


Hello giovonni,

It's great to chat with you.
I agree with, our conduct can express our inner peace or lack of it.
And, we have to know what choices are available to us...:playball::frusty:

Tony

[Tony]

If one writes too much it's said to be preaching, and if one write too little it isn't clear...what to do? :rolleyes:
Buddhist language is not easy to understand: one needs a commentary for the the text, and even
then one needs a commentary on the commentary! Translating Sanskrit and Tibetan into English
has taken scholars much time to find an appropriate word or phrase to express the inexpressible.

Once we can identify the problem, then we know what we are dealing with, and then healing can begin.
The challenge is to recognise the Dark and the Light within us.

This is to complete this thread about the Banality of Evil. The point of offering this is that those
who may be interested can have a glimpse of another view that they may not have been previously
aware of – that of the Dzogchen tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, which is a complete system.
The actual experience of absolute truth is utterly simple and beyond words, but we have a myriad of
obstacles stemming from one...ignorance of our true nature.


Two things to understand:
reality, and that which obscures reality.

Recognising our absolute nature
is not really that difficult.
Recognising what is obscuring that absolute nature
is not really that difficult.

Stopping one's habitual patterning is… challenging!
There 'I' go again.



The Four Enlightened Activities are a natural expression of our true nature:

Pacifying
From an enlightened perspective, everything happens within inner peace – inner space. This allows room
for anything to occur. Pacifying acknowledges the right of every thing to be, within the illusory world in
which sentient beings live. The action of pacifying understands that there are no such things as problems,
obstacles or enemies. Aggression arising from ego's negativity is entirely unnecessary, and only serve to
deepen the illusion into delusion...THERE ISN'T A PROBLEM!

Enriching
Enriching allows the clarity of light into a situation, for refinement to take place through an effortless
unfolding of spontaneity and capacity. Situations have an abundance of resources, no matter how
poverty-stricken they may seem from a conventional point of view...EVERYTHING CAN BE REFINED!

Magnetising
In conventional terms, we try to attract pleasant situations and ward off undesirable situations, and as a result,
we can find ourselves disappointed and unfulfilled. The action of magnetising is to remaining centred.
Then, whatever is needed is naturally and spontaneously attracted without the intervention of ego -
perfect synchronicity...BE AT PEACE!

Destroying
The action of destroying is compassion. It destroys that which needs to be destroyed - the negative energy
of ego, which tries to smother situations. Ego wishes to cut off the flow of positive energy, so the action of
destroying is aimed at ego's destructive manipulations...BE A MIRROR.



The Distortions of Ego: the Four Demons:

Each of the four wisdoms is distorted by the manipulations of ego, which is self-centredness. Everything relates
to a me, what 'I' want: the ego thinks it's enlightened. These four demons maintain the concept of a self.

The Demon Action of Pacifying
This imitates genuine pacifying, expressed through a self-serving attitude, in the sense of “TRUST ME”.

The Demon Action of Enriching
Here, ego turns natural growth into its own manipulated world. It wants to possess knowledge for itself,
in terms of my wealth, my knowledge, my possessions. “I AM CLEVER.”

The Demon Action of Magnetising
There is an attempt to use attraction to feed our ego with that which we consider to be desirable. Based on this,
we develop pride, jealousy, anger, fear etc. “ADMIRE ME.”

The Demon Action of Destroying
We cannot discriminate, and so want to destroy everything: it cannot help itself. As Chogyam Trungpa said,
“Ego begins to get inspired in the wrong way, to uproot the whole tree... “I HATE YOU!”


All we have to do is recognise.
There is a momentary feeling of pain
as heightened emotions die away,
allowing clarity to occur.



Tony

[giovonni]

Thanks Tony


I Love Happy Endings

http://www.buddhamuseum.com/happy-buddha/happy-buddha-mi-li_4004.jpg

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

this is a superb thread i've been missing out on.

;)

[Shezbeth]

If one writes too much it's said to be preaching, and if one write too little it isn't clear...what to do? :rolleyes:

I can't speak for others, but IMO the perception of preaching is not to do with writing too much, it is to do with the insistence that the position is a given and concluded truth; unwillingness to see or agree to this point does not change its (subjective) validity, and it demeans the credibility of the professed philosophy to not recognize it.

At no point has there been any acceptance, acknowledgement or accommodation for the validity of disagreement, and with this latest post you appear to be actively/literally demonizing and further dismissing contention.


Buddhist language is not easy to understand: one needs a commentary for the the text, and even
then one needs a commentary on the commentary! Translating Sanskrit and Tibetan into English
has taken scholars much time to find an appropriate word or phrase to express the inexpressible.

Once we can identify the problem, then we know what we are dealing with, and then healing can begin.
The challenge is to recognise the Dark and the Light within us.

This is to complete this thread about the Banality of Evil. The point of offering this is that those
who may be interested can have a glimpse of another view that they may not have been previously
aware of – that of the Dzogchen tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, which is a complete system.
The actual experience of absolute truth is utterly simple and beyond words, but we have a myriad of
obstacles stemming from one...ignorance of our true nature.

I thank you for the opportunity to experience your depiction of this tradition; consider indicating at the outset of a thread that you are speaking on behalf of a tradition as opposed to dictating/prescribing absolute truth (or pursuit of), as this will help to communicate your acknowledgement that what you are describing is a subjective practice and interpretation.

It seems you are suggesting that individuals who disagree with the tradition as depicted are ignorant of their true nature and/or that there is an absolute truth that is consistent with what you convey. I find this assertion to be a continuation of the dismissive rhetoric I have referred to previously. Perhaps this is due to my own inability to adequately fathom what you are describing, or perhaps - due to limitations in translation and others - it is a subject that cannot be effectively communicated in a cursory manner.

I find that the only absolute truth is that there is no objective (outside one's perception) absolute truth, which appears to be in conflict with the absolute truth you are attempting to refer to. I do not contest the presence of subjective 'absolute truth', but such is particular to the individual (subjective - of or relating to the one perceiving). This is not bad in and of its self, but one could certainly do worse than to be aware of and to expressively accommodate this observable phenomenon, else one runs the risk of being misunderstood in the least, and engaging/promoting in authoritarian thinking in the most. Misunderstanding is not bad in and of its self either, but seems like something to be avoided in the attempt to effectively communicate.


Two things to understand:
reality, and that which obscures reality.

Recognising our absolute nature
is not really that difficult.
Recognising what is obscuring that absolute nature
is not really that difficult.

The Four Enlightened Activities are a natural expression of our true nature:

Pacifying
From an enlightened perspective, everything happens within inner peace – inner space. This allows room
for anything to occur. Pacifying acknowledges the right of every thing to be, within the illusory world in
which sentient beings live. The action of pacifying understands that there are no such things as problems,
obstacles or enemies. Aggression arising from ego's negativity is entirely unnecessary, and only serve to
deepen the illusion into delusion...THERE ISN'T A PROBLEM!

Enriching
Enriching allows the clarity of light into a situation, for refinement to take place through an effortless
unfolding of spontaneity and capacity. Situations have an abundance of resources, no matter how
poverty-stricken they may seem from a conventional point of view...EVERYTHING CAN BE REFINED!

Magnetising
In conventional terms, we try to attract pleasant situations and ward off undesirable situations, and as a result,
we can find ourselves disappointed and unfulfilled. The action of magnetising is to remaining centred.
Then, whatever is needed is naturally and spontaneously attracted without the intervention of ego -
perfect synchronicity...BE AT PEACE!

Destroying
The action of destroying is compassion. It destroys that which needs to be destroyed - the negative energy
of ego, which tries to smother situations. Ego wishes to cut off the flow of positive energy, so the action of
destroying is aimed at ego's destructive manipulations...BE A MIRROR.



The Distortions of Ego: the Four Demons:

Each of the four wisdoms is distorted by the manipulations of ego, which is self-centredness. Everything relates
to a me, what 'I' want: the ego thinks it's enlightened. These four demons maintain the concept of a self.

The Demon Action of Pacifying
This imitates genuine pacifying, expressed through a self-serving attitude, in the sense of “TRUST ME”.

The Demon Action of Enriching
Here, ego turns natural growth into its own manipulated world. It wants to possess knowledge for itself,
in terms of my wealth, my knowledge, my possessions. “I AM CLEVER.”

The Demon Action of Magnetising
There is an attempt to use attraction to feed our ego with that which we consider to be desirable. Based on this,
we develop pride, jealousy, anger, fear etc. “ADMIRE ME.”

The Demon Action of Destroying
We cannot discriminate, and so want to destroy everything: it cannot help itself. As Chogyam Trungpa said,
“Ego begins to get inspired in the wrong way, to uproot the whole tree... “I HATE YOU!”

While what you are describing may be consistent with the tradition, that does not mean that the tradition has accurately and effectively determined/perceived reality. There are countless ways in which reality can be perceived, that are fitting and consistent with observable phenomenon and no more or less consistent or accurate except as perceived by the one perceiving.

Simply, disagreement is not evidence that a person is inaccurately perceiving our true nature, just as agreement is not evidence that a person is accurately doing so. Qualifying such a perception with a tradition does not validate the idea, it only means that others have entertained it in previous.

I find the generalizations that contention is purely derived from self-centeredness and ego to be most concerning. You indicate that distortions of the ego pertain to the "I want" and yet neglect to recognize that this thread began/results from an "I want". The four enlightened activities you relate are derived from an "I want" mentality!

Further, it is observable from an outside perspective that you are engaging in many of the distorted practices which you are identify! The observer is supposed to 'Trust' that what you state is resultant of observance of 'absolute truth', asserting that such a perception is desirable or 'Admirable'.

Throughout this whole thread I have found myself agreeing with a one statement and then finding the following statement to be incomprehensible given the previous. Anyone observing me would see me regularly state "Yeah, I can relate to that. Wait, what?! Where/how did he reach that conclusion?"

Admittedly, my agreement or comprehension is not a requirement. Still, I am in the 'audience' in a manner of speaking, and if possible I would like to understand what you find to be both significant and valuable (in the sense that you are willing to commit the obvious and significant effort to convey), as I am still at a loss to agree for the most part.

I have been thoroughly and numerously gratified by this thread, please do not perceive offense in my refutations and contentions. :hug:

[giovonni]

For me again it all comes down to how one desires to perceive life whether good or evil or not ... When i am confronted with malevolent evil energy ... i will reflect and mirror it backward to source ... the power of good intent does not require force ... Evil will simply fade from the field of engagement when not fed. This is my chosen modus vivendi (way of being) and it has surprisingly served Me. :)

[Tony]

Dear Shezbeth

Thank you for your comments.

On observing the mind, we can become aware of perception.
The question then arises: "What is it that is perceiving perception?" This could be termed "the awareness of awareness".
In the awareness of awareness, there is still an identification with an I, and therefore, duality.

Here we move into a more suble aspect of this direct experience, and this is generally seen in meditation:
there is a resting in awareness that is uncontaminated by comments or thoughts. This could be termed "pure awareness".
We often oscillate in and out of this experience without noticing.

This pure awareness is a unity of emptiness and awareness.
The experience is non-duality.
It is beyond thought.
It is what we are.
And it could be termed "ordinary".

Tony

[Tony]

Happiness is Sadness, and Sadness is the Key to Happiness

What we normally think of as happiness isn't totally fulfilling, as it comes and goes. It's usually reliant on the 'right' conditions.
Trying to find happiness and then maintaining it, creates frustration and obsession, because we find that we are running after
a happiness which is elusive.

When we recognise our sadness and admit it, that recognition is the first step on the road to discovering true happiness.
This, in Buddhism, is the first noble truth: to recognise suffering.

We're going to find out that we are on a road to nowhere - to now here! We have been happy all along, but we've just gone a
little crazy, looking for something that we already are. It's a journey without a goal. However, we cannot run around singing
“I am Happy!” as we will find that life has a way of continually tripping us up (which is due to our unpurified karma –
the stains in our mind). We have to get to the root of our suffering (our self-cherishing) in order to be liberated.

The other three of the four noble truths are:
recognising the cause of suffering (the obstacle)
finding a method to remove that suffering (the path)
and engaging in the method
...learning it, realising it, loving it and living it.

Our destination is love. This is the unconditional happiness and love in which we naturally abide, but still there is a sadness,
which is the natural outcome of realisation. It's a mixture of tears and joy.

Having arrived at our destination (although maybe not totally purified) we see that others are still caught up in sadness.
We have found happiness and they are still sad. This creates a tender heart of sadness, empathy, compassion...love.

It's not until we understand our true nature of love, that we recognise that it is in all creatures...but is going unnoticed.

We has to be willing to open ourself up to vulnerability in samsara, because an unconscious lack of love will be thrown at us.
Until we are fully enlightened, love will always be challenging. This is the path of a Bodhisattva.


This classic film, Twelve Angry Men, illustrates the rigidity and self-cherishing of the human condition, which, if not tamed,
can provoke evil acts.

RelOJfFIyp8



Tony

[Tony]

Thich Nhat Hanh on wrong perceptions, or mistaken perceptions.

a7POivx7mjk

[Dorjezigzag]

To return to the thread title it is very easy to apply the label 'evil', but if one is empathetic you can see that many evil acts can be seen to have the roots in the suffering of the proponent. Many acts have no excuse but having empathy means trying to understand why actions are taken. Someones action may be evil but it may not be fair to totally write someone off as evil.

Evil acts can be banal, but it can also be unpredictable. They may be the acts of an establishment, or the acts against the establishment, they can be planned or they can be spontaneous, carried out methodically or in a passionate rage of anger.

'Evil' acts can be seen everywhere, even within Tibetan buddhism,

Ritual murder as a current issue among exile Tibetans

The terrible events of February 4, 1997 in Dharamsala, the Indian seat of government of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, demonstrate that ritual human sacrifice among the Tibetans is in no way a thing of the past but rather continues to take place up until the present day. According to the police report on that day six to eight men burst into the cell of the 70-year-old lama, Lobsang Gyatso, the leader of the Buddhist dialectic school, and murdered him and two of his pupils with numerous stab wounds. The bloody deed was carried out in the immediate vicinity of the Dalai Lama's residence in a building which forms part of the Namgyal monastery. The Namgyal Institute is, as we have already mentioned on a number of occasions, responsible for the ritual performance of the Kalachakra Tantra. The world press — in as far as it reported the crime at all — was horrified by the extreme cruelty of the murderers. The victims' throats had been slit and according to some press reports their skin had been partially torn from their bodies (Süddeutsche Zeitung, 1997, No. 158, p. 10). There is even a rumor among the exile Tibetan community that the perpetrators had sucked out the victims' blood in order to use it for magical purposes. All this took place in just under an hour.

The Indian criminal police and the western media were united in the view that this was a matter of a ritual murder, since money and valuable objects, such as a golden Buddha which was to be found there for example, were left untouched by the murderers. The “mouthpiece” for the Dalai Lama in the USA, Robert Thurman, also saw the murder as a ritual act: “The three were stabbed repeatedly and cut up in a way that was like exorcism.” (Newsweek, May 5, 1997, p. 43).

In general the deed is suspected to have been an act of revenge by followers of the protective deity, Dorje Shugden, of whom Lobsang Gyatso was an open opponent. But to date the police have been unable to produce any real evidence. In contrast, the Shugden followers see the murders as an attempt to marginalize them as criminals by the Dalai Lama. (We shall discuss this in the next chapter.)
http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Part-2-06.htm

[Tony]

To return to the thread title it is very easy to apply the label 'evil', but if one is empathetic you can see that many evil acts can be seen to have the roots in the suffering of the proponent. Many acts have no excuse but having empathy means trying to understand why actions are taken. Someones action may be evil but it may not be fair to totally write someone off as evil.

Evil acts can be banal, but it can also be unpredictable. They may be the acts of an establishment, or the acts against the establishment, they can be planned or they can be spontaneous, carried out methodically or in a passionate rage of anger.

'Evil' acts can be seen everywhere, even within Tibetan buddhism,

Ritual murder as a current issue among exile Tibetans

The terrible events of February 4, 1997 in Dharamsala, the Indian seat of government of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, demonstrate that ritual human sacrifice among the Tibetans is in no way a thing of the past but rather continues to take place up until the present day. According to the police report on that day six to eight men burst into the cell of the 70-year-old lama, Lobsang Gyatso, the leader of the Buddhist dialectic school, and murdered him and two of his pupils with numerous stab wounds. The bloody deed was carried out in the immediate vicinity of the Dalai Lama's residence in a building which forms part of the Namgyal monastery. The Namgyal Institute is, as we have already mentioned on a number of occasions, responsible for the ritual performance of the Kalachakra Tantra. The world press — in as far as it reported the crime at all — was horrified by the extreme cruelty of the murderers. The victims' throats had been slit and according to some press reports their skin had been partially torn from their bodies (Süddeutsche Zeitung, 1997, No. 158, p. 10). There is even a rumor among the exile Tibetan community that the perpetrators had sucked out the victims' blood in order to use it for magical purposes. All this took place in just under an hour.

The Indian criminal police and the western media were united in the view that this was a matter of a ritual murder, since money and valuable objects, such as a golden Buddha which was to be found there for example, were left untouched by the murderers. The “mouthpiece” for the Dalai Lama in the USA, Robert Thurman, also saw the murder as a ritual act: “The three were stabbed repeatedly and cut up in a way that was like exorcism.” (Newsweek, May 5, 1997, p. 43).

In general the deed is suspected to have been an act of revenge by followers of the protective deity, Dorje Shugden, of whom Lobsang Gyatso was an open opponent. But to date the police have been unable to produce any real evidence. In contrast, the Shugden followers see the murders as an attempt to marginalize them as criminals by the Dalai Lama. (We shall discuss this in the next chapter.)
http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Part-2-06.htm


Every sentient being has Buddha nature (an awakened nature).
Buddhists are not perfect.


Tony

[Dorjezigzag]

Every sentient being has Buddha nature (an awakened nature).

In the opinion of most Buddhists


Buddhists are not perfect.
Exactly, so perhaps try to have empathy with 'other' viewpoints, and not impose your own opinions as facts

[Tony]

Every sentient being has Buddha nature (an awakened nature).

In the opinion of most Buddhists


Buddhists are not perfect.
Exactly, so perhaps try to have empathy with 'other' viewpoints, and not impose your own opinions as facts







Isn't this was a forum for different views?
It stands to reason that every creature is aware, otherwise it could not survive.
Humans have the ability to recognise this awareness, and so awaken to their true nature.
Although animals cannot do this, I'll give them the respect of one day achieving enlightenment.

I fail to understand the aggression on this subject. The banality of evil is just suggesting that is
a misperception of our true nature, therefore we are governed by our negative emotions.

Tony

[Dorjezigzag]

Every sentient being has Buddha nature (an awakened nature).

In the opinion of most Buddhists


Buddhists are not perfect.
Exactly, so perhaps try to have empathy with 'other' viewpoints, and not impose your own opinions as facts







Isn't this was a forum for different views?
It stands to reason that every creature is aware, otherwise it could not survive.
Humans have the ability to recognise this awareness, and so awaken to their true nature.
Although animals cannot do this, I'll give them the respect of one day achieving enlightenment.

I fail to understand the aggression on this subject. The banality of evil is just suggesting that is
a misperception of our true nature, therefore we are governed by our negative emotions.

Tony

"Although animals cannot do this"

In your opinion;)


I fail to understand the aggression on this subject

There is no aggression, I am calmly presenting an opinion, if you perceive that as aggression perhaps the aggression is in your perception
What we choose to see, we will often perceive.
Some people love to see 'others' with differing opinions as evil

[Milneman]

Isn't this was a forum for different views?
It stands to reason that every creature is aware, otherwise it could not survive.
Humans have the ability to recognise this awareness, and so awaken to their true nature.
Although animals cannot do this, I'll give them the respect of one day achieving enlightenment.

I fail to understand the aggression on this subject. The banality of evil is just suggesting that is
a misperception of our true nature, therefore we are governed by our negative emotions.

Tony



You think this is bad, Tony! Try explaining Emanual Kant and see how far we get! ;)

Bottom line: we're all teachers and students to each other. You learn something even from the negative reactions you have. Maybe I'm feeling upset at that post because it's reflective of something I don't want to see in myself, maybe it's balderdash, or maybe I should express myself clearly and engage in debate...oooo, how cool would that be! A forum where debate happens and people learn from each other. (Wasn't and isn't that the entire point of the Academy?)

Preach on! We all take turns. :) That's the point!!

What's that got to do with Evil, capital E?

When we react in a way that conceals the inadequacies of our emotions, the ones that come up when something/someone gives us a reason to react, and we do have a choice (but it's become so second nature we have to learn to be aware of that choice-making), we put a grain of sand on a scale. Think about how many grains of sand we have put on the scale over the course of our lives, every lie no matter how big or small, every time we avoid responsibility, every time we choose the lighter choice because it would mean getting something we wanted to have over something we were uncomfortable doing. Tony, I think, is presenting one of many ways to learn how to see that process of putting sand on the scales. You learn why you do it, why you've been taught to do it that way, and how to stop doing it. And trust you me, I may be approaching this from the point of view of Christian mysticism but the results are one and the same with only very, VERY slight variations. Life, very simply, becomes better to live because it's simpler.

Here endeth the lesson....the strange Scottish parson yields the pulpit. ;O)

[Milneman]

Every sentient being has Buddha nature (an awakened nature).

In the opinion of most Buddhists


Buddhists are not perfect.
Exactly, so perhaps try to have empathy with 'other' viewpoints, and not impose your own opinions as facts







Isn't this was a forum for different views?
It stands to reason that every creature is aware, otherwise it could not survive.
Humans have the ability to recognise this awareness, and so awaken to their true nature.
Although animals cannot do this, I'll give them the respect of one day achieving enlightenment.

I fail to understand the aggression on this subject. The banality of evil is just suggesting that is
a misperception of our true nature, therefore we are governed by our negative emotions.

Tony

"Although animals cannot do this"

In your opinion;)


I fail to understand the aggression on this subject

There is no aggression, I am calmly presenting an opinion, if you perceive that as aggression perhaps the aggression is in your perception
What we choose to see, we will often perceive.
Some people love to see 'others' with differing opinions as evil


You ever seen that app, "Dumb Ways to Die" that was put out by one of the railway organizations in the UK/Australia maybe? It's pretty funny! The entire game is to stop yourself from "dying" by not doing dumb things, like tossing wasp nests like footballs, standing too close to a train platform, eating a rotten pie, being shot during hunting season, or poking a bear with a stick just because you can.


:moony:

[Tony]

The Reptilian brain – Beauty and the Beast.
An unusual view.

The Reptilian brain is our basic primitive brain, it controls flight, fight and freeze in every creature.
This principle perfectly reflects the basic principle of this universe: attraction, repulsion and inertia
- the principles in every atom.

Hidden deep in this Reptilian brain principle is absolute wisdom. It has a spiritual content!

The basic principle of a sentient universe (conscious universe) is: attraction, repulsion and inertia,
in other words- fight, flight and freeze.

If we look at the basics principles of human behaviour we find - desire, aversion and ignorance -
I like, I do not like, I do not care. These correspond exactly to the basic principles of the universe
– move towards, move away and indifferent.

Desire, aversion and ignorance are the neurotic states of the sentient mind. It all revolves around
this feeling of our mental image of “I”. The identification with this “I” creates the desire to defend
it's self, attack others or ignore. This dark side, creates conflicts and confusion in our minds and
this is also the state of play in the world.

But we all have a feeling there is more to us then merely animal reaction don't we?
And we are correct, but maybe it is not always clear.

There is another side to us, a Light side, and it's obvious when 'pointed out'!

We are aware. In the first instance of this awareness, there is pure awareness. There are no obstacles
to this pure awareness. It is pure perception, empty of contamination. It is present before Reptilian
brain kicks in. Before any reaction there has to be awareness, pure clear awareness without limitations.
This 'without limitation' is without fear, it is unconditional – before the effects of conditions.
It's pure openness - pure love.

Those three neurotic principles of desire, aversion and ignorance have three corresponding enlightened
three principles of Empty Essence, Cognisant nature and unconfined Compassion.

This is how they correlate.
Desire
- Emptiness
Aversion- Cognition
Ignorance- Compassion

Our essence is emptiness is pure sacred space. Desire arises creating concepts which fills this
sacred space. Emptiness get filled with fixated ideas.

Our nature is awareness is a knowing quality. Aversion arises when awareness creates an “I” through
forgetting its essence, and we start judging.

Our expression is unconfined compassionate is joy of being. Ignorance arises when empty
awareness forgets its own true nature and essence – emptiness and awareness – and that of others.
So we lack love.

When we recognise these principles of the universe they no longer control us: they are a direct reflection
of our true nature. They become our symbolic teacher. They become fun!


The true nature of reptilian brain is:
Emptiness – primordial purity
Cognisance – knowing awareness
Compassion-unconditional loving kindness.

We can stay a Reptilian
or Love.



Tony

[loungelizard]

I was wondering whether you'd read a book by Sacha Baron Cohen called "Zero Degrees of Empathy": in this, he says that the acts of cruelty that humans commit arise from "empathy erosion", which could be termed "evil".

In Hannah Arendt's book about Eichmann, her conclusion about "the banality of evil" seems to differ from Baron Cohen's research in the sense that Eichmann was not diagnosed with any psychological disorder whatsoever. He was able to commit the atrocities for which he was responsible simply because he didn't think about what he was doing. Eichmann showed no guilt for his actions during the holocaust, and neither did he seem to be driven by a hatred of the Jews. In his mind, he was quite simply "doing his job" and obeying the law of the Third Reich. That was the only thing that mattered to him, above and beyond the needs of any other human being.

I suppose that both these pieces of research confirm that evil is not something committed by "bad people". We all lack empathy to a greater or lesser degree, because we are all driven by the demands of our ego and its desire for validation and acknowledgement. As long as we are unable to control our actions and reactions, we will be capable of the whole gamut of deeds, some of which could be evil (cause harm).

When considered from a spiritual perspective, perhaps both good and evil could be considered in terms of their effect on the people's lives - they're not something abstract, but firmly rooted in the relative world.

It does seem that evil is closer than we think…it is an innate, inseparable part of being human, as is love.

It is a person's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.
Gautama Buddha


PS I've just seen you posted Twelve Angry Men (what a film!) - a great example of how evil can manifest in ordinary, everyday situations when we are too lazy/selfish/greedy etc etc to be bothered...the member of the jury who wants to get the decision over with because he has a ball game to get to...:Cry:

That is the banality of evil.

[Agape]

To return to the thread title it is very easy to apply the label 'evil', but if one is empathetic you can see that many evil acts can be seen to have the roots in the suffering of the proponent. Many acts have no excuse but having empathy means trying to understand why actions are taken. Someones action may be evil but it may not be fair to totally write someone off as evil.

Evil acts can be banal, but it can also be unpredictable. They may be the acts of an establishment, or the acts against the establishment, they can be planned or they can be spontaneous, carried out methodically or in a passionate rage of anger.

'Evil' acts can be seen everywhere, even within Tibetan buddhism,

Ritual murder as a current issue among exile Tibetans

The terrible events of February 4, 1997 in Dharamsala, the Indian seat of government of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, demonstrate that ritual human sacrifice among the Tibetans is in no way a thing of the past but rather continues to take place up until the present day. According to the police report on that day six to eight men burst into the cell of the 70-year-old lama, Lobsang Gyatso, the leader of the Buddhist dialectic school, and murdered him and two of his pupils with numerous stab wounds. The bloody deed was carried out in the immediate vicinity of the Dalai Lama's residence in a building which forms part of the Namgyal monastery. The Namgyal Institute is, as we have already mentioned on a number of occasions, responsible for the ritual performance of the Kalachakra Tantra. The world press — in as far as it reported the crime at all — was horrified by the extreme cruelty of the murderers. The victims' throats had been slit and according to some press reports their skin had been partially torn from their bodies (Süddeutsche Zeitung, 1997, No. 158, p. 10). There is even a rumor among the exile Tibetan community that the perpetrators had sucked out the victims' blood in order to use it for magical purposes. All this took place in just under an hour.

The Indian criminal police and the western media were united in the view that this was a matter of a ritual murder, since money and valuable objects, such as a golden Buddha which was to be found there for example, were left untouched by the murderers. The “mouthpiece” for the Dalai Lama in the USA, Robert Thurman, also saw the murder as a ritual act: “The three were stabbed repeatedly and cut up in a way that was like exorcism.” (Newsweek, May 5, 1997, p. 43).

In general the deed is suspected to have been an act of revenge by followers of the protective deity, Dorje Shugden, of whom Lobsang Gyatso was an open opponent. But to date the police have been unable to produce any real evidence. In contrast, the Shugden followers see the murders as an attempt to marginalize them as criminals by the Dalai Lama. (We shall discuss this in the next chapter.)
http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Part-2-06.htm


Every sentient being has Buddha nature (an awakened nature).
Buddhists are not perfect.


Tony


I'm not entirely sure what all pertains to the topic here .. and why did DorjeZigzag choose the above quote from page that I've encountered couple of times on the internet already and that is essentially very anti-Buddhist , or say anti-Tibetan ,

example of western scholasticism , and attempt to categorise phenomena and faith and customs of people that evolved for thousands of years in very different cultural backgrounds with tools of 'Freudian psychology' , merciless to the substance and culture it cares to analyse .

The people who put this book together have to be hating Tibetan Buddhism in its core , no matter how much time and effort they invested to studying it,
their work is not better as would be one of remote island shaman writing critical essay of Bible and Christianity after the crusaders murdered his family and therefor all he can see in the holy book is an example of psychopathology ,
devoid of sympathy and inherited initiation to the history and spirit of Judeo-Christian context ,
such work for sure - could offer 'great mirror' to some commonly accepted Christian beliefs but would be probably seen not only as heresy but hurtful misunderstanding from most good , and practising Christians .

Tibetan Buddhism tends to be misunderstood , especially for it's connection to the 'spirit world' , for inclusion of many non-human beings in its practises , for remoteness that's been impossible to access to the world outside for most of its historical development , not to speak about failing attempts of outsiders to adopt its language and culture as their own .

It's the 'spirit world' , worlds of transcendental Buddhas and Bodhisattvas , Dakinis , many classes of powerful spirits most of whom have been 'tamed' and turned to 'protectors of Buddhism' and many other classes of non-human entities that is especially confusing to modern day man .

And as I keep saying .. unless you grew up or lived in that culture .. the same way that you adopt certain customs within your families , whether you truly 'believe' in them or not, they are almost impossible to explain , to the world outside .
Every ancient tradition is based on family .. whether it was the Abrahamic religions, Mohammed and his 'clan' ,
the Shakya family of Buddha , or various - countless families of seers and prophets and shamans all over the world ,

there is undeniable similarity in way how every culture of old deified some of their ancestors and venerated the spirits of Elders who were Elders of that particular tribe .
When the village grandmother died she became one with the spirit world but she could be still approached for advice by the shamans and especially , some of her close relatives .

After generations and generations .. these fathers and mothers were no longer important as human individuals but some of them served as the 'link' between the two worlds - and were known as such , the spirit messengers, the Wise Ones .

Every old religion and society made use of these links ..

Now , speaking of ethics, I suppose that's something that keeps evolving with the shape and state of human society on Earth in general .
H.H. Dalailama in particular is calling for 'ethics of new millennium' and 'secular ethics' that he hopes would bridge and unite cultures and religious differences . Whether this is feasible and easy to do option is hard to say nevertheless ,

'higher ethics' such as the 'ten commandments' , or '5 Buddhist vows' are in heart and core of every major and approvable faith of our time today, whether it's Hindu Dharma or Islam or whether it's the secular law system .

What it means according to my view is that human society took its time to define and confirm its core ethical views and values and it did so , or does so ... uniformly .. in one direction.


The truth of human life is that human body is mortal, perishable , very rarely can live too long . It's vulnerable , prone to diseases , physical and mental failures . The number of vulnerabilities ( that are also called 'obstacles to enlightenment ' in Buddhism , said to be 80 million ) is almost infinite .
If human life and existence were not so complicated, I suppose the need for complex science views and research would never arise ,
we could well suffice with what the 'elders' thought they can last with , few essential principles .

But it isn't enough . It's never been enough . No single book or religion or credos could ever contain the life of individual , not to speak about the life of society .

Life evolves - regenerates its capacity - whatever way you prefer to think about it ... some think they actually 'evolve' - and they do,
others realise they're 'returning to the Source' - and they do . Or both simultaneously , if that's possible .

Likewise Tibetan Buddism is very complex and it has its own inner science , not studied and practised the same way as sciences have been understood at the western hemisphere , nevertheless .. it is inner science with roots extending thousands years back to history ..one pertaining deep to the nature of life , organic and inorganic matter , nature of mind and depth of space .
Looking at it from outside is somewhat like seeing your College building from outside ..


A 'murder' in every culture is just that , act of extreme sadness and violence that is not acceptable on base of any religious 'faith' . It's not a 'mistake' that can be excused or forgiven without handling the individual correctly .

From Buddhist perspective .. ignorant man is ill man . Someone who plots a murder or 'ritual sacrifice' with hope of achieving salvation for himself , can't be a healthy individual .
Such do exist in every culture, maybe every family .. bad apples . Some can be healed or helped to heal .. others not .

I think it's illness of certain people to seek revenge , or support in religious doctrines for evil acts .. while the same doctrines serve as good guide to the good,
they seem to be also tool for the wicked .

We all I think, should evolve and trust own intuition better . Rely on own wisdom rather than borrowed one . It saves lives and souls .

:angel:

[Tony]

Buddha's teachings are perfect,
Buddhists are not.
Christ's teachings are perfect,
Christians are not.
Krishna's teachings are perfect,
Hindus are not.
Everyone's absolute nature is perfect,
but our relative nature is not.

Within every imperfect individual there is perfection.
This is oneness of the two truths.
Our imperfect relative nature holds the key to perfection.
It serves as a reminder: it's our teacher.

When we personalise everything, an I is present,
and we limit everything to a mundane illusion.
When we de-personalise everything, a mere I is present.
In the stillness of realising our true nature, no I is present.

The mundane obscures the supramundane.
Once we identify and recognise the obscuration, we are free
...until it comes back again. This why we practise.


Banality lacks originality. It just repeats.


Tony

[Agape]

I'd add this much ..not as a matter of argument .. despite common convictions .. Buddha at the end , did not claim any teachings as 'his own' .
The Diamond Cutter Sutra ( Vajrachedika Prajnaparamita Sutra ) is the best example of what he probably thought, realised and said to his disciples about 'his teachings' .

I don't think that Buddha or even Jesus thought of themselves as 'perfect' .

I think they were those who went far enough to face all their imperfections and perfections and rise beyond the horizon ..
they did actually face it hard . Buddha in his 6 years of extreme asceticism after which he realised that the effort to reach 'perfection' or 'divine state' is somewhat futile ..

and taking step back from the extreme effort he's 'got it' .

Jesus suffered the extreme of human pain and cruelty on the cross . There was hardly anything 'perfect' in it other than what his followers make of it .

When I discussed religions with some of my Muslim friends in Dharamsala, they say 'God does not want us to be perfect, he merely expects us to be good and loving people .. in Islam ..'muslim' comes from 'mumin' , meaning 'good man' . Man who loves other people is dear to God because we all are his children , not one better than the other .

I think ..as Tony says .. the banality of evil repeats itself ... so also the conviction of human race ( or parts of it ) that they can achieve 'perfection' or super-human status in human body .
It's been tried many times and at the end , always ended up in disaster . Whether the means were called 'magic' , 'genetic engineering ' , bioengineering , cybernetics or meditation.

Society neurosis and hunt for perfection and 'faith' , faith in promises given by science or by what people make of teachings and prophecies , faith that there is a technical and/or biological power and option for such perfection to be achieved , a short cut .

If there is , it's none else than who we are in essence and already now .

The rest of it seems to be long struggle for building own perfect world that we know has to collapse one day in distant future because it's never meant to be perfect ..


:angel:

[Dorjezigzag]

Hi Agape,

The reason for my post which unlike many posts on this thread was focused on the nature of evil was to inspire posts such as yours. This comment particularly summed up where I am coming from


And as I keep saying .. unless you grew up or lived in that culture .. the same way that you adopt certain customs within your families , whether you truly 'believe' in them or not, they are almost impossible to explain , to the world outside

I have studied Tibetan Buddhism for a long time, I lived in a Buddhist centre for 2 years, I came to Tibetan Buddhism through shamanism as of course Tibetan Buddhism is a combination of the ancient shamanic bon religion and Buddhism. I have lived among Tibetans for long periods of time.

I do not hate Tibetan buddhism, on the contrary I have taken a lot from it, notice my avatar name, but I know it enough to see that what is usually presented as Tibetan buddhism in the west is not Tibetan Buddhism and as you say even if it was, the majority of people would not even understand it as it is so culturally alien

Although the Victor Trimondi article I posted obviously has an agenda, nothing in it is untrue as far as I can see and if you are to understand a belief system sometime you have to look at the less palatable( in western eyes) elements of a culture.

Many in the west view Tibetan Buddhism as all sweetness and light, with the smiling fluffy image of the Dalai lama, like a Tibetan Eckhart Tolle as a faith that has no skeletons in its closet, believe me it is far from perfect. When I met the Dalai Lama he struck me as having this curious combination of gentleness and strength. I have met one other person with this curious mix and he was a very powerful mafia boss. Saying that I have upmost respect for the dalai Lama, I have defended him on many a thread
http://juhotunkelo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/tolle-dalailama.jpg

In my opinion the way the thread was being directed as is the usual case with Tonys threads, was as follows

look this is why the west is evil, here is some selective tit bits of tibetan buddhist philosophy if only we could live like that there would be no problems. My example was merely showing that Tibetan Buddhism is not all peace and light.

Ultimately peace comes from the individual not any belief system, this is the world we are moving into.
Any system that is imposed will ultimately fail

Tibetan Buddhism is a system of control, there are things I know that i would never reveal, the west just would not understand it, but I think the time is not far off when more will be revealed.

I remember Tony's line often used to be Tibetan buddhism is effective because it is so logical and he used to like to question 'New Age' channeled material and on one level it is logical but on another level divining the future through throwing dough balls at walls and consulting professional oracles who for want of a better word channel knowledge is not very logical.

In the west they will usually ignore all those mystical elements, but without those elements you cannot understand Tibetan Buddhism. I actually like these elements.

Some people may view my post as a bit of a slap, Tony says I was being aggressive

Well if you find that aggressive what kind of Tibetan buddhist are you;)

Here is a video of Tibetan monks in debate, as always their arguments delivered with a slap
n47meDyom9E

Notice there are smiles as well
Love to all

[Agape]

Thanks for your answer Dorjezigzag , and your contribution here , I do understand what you mean .. the reason I reflected on your post in particular has nothing to do with you personally,
it just caught my eye .. because as you probably know as well, I've studied in Namgyal monastery in Dharamsala for several years and am familiar with the case and of course, this is a shame .. one of many to quote .. shame on the good name of Buddhism and what it represents .

I know what you mean but as Tony himself has said , you need to separate the two 'objects' here - one being Dharma and the other - human nature .

To say that 'Tibetan Buddhism' or 'Christianity' , for example , are not all 'love and light' does not explain a lot to casual reader . They probably just sigh and say 'we always knew that' .

Tibetan Buddism is subtle and complicated and Buddhist philosophy especially is about reasoning and discernment . If 'spirits' take over logic and ethics rather than otherwise it has very little to do with Buddhism as such , in my opinion .

It's late hour for me now so sorry for short reply ...


May all be well for you

:angel:

[AutumnW]

Tony, Preaching drives me right out of my mind, whether it's coming from the East or Western traditions. You may not be particularly ego driven. I don't know, but just because some Buddhist priests yadayadayada about the dangers of ego, doesn't mean they aren't egomaniacal themselves. Buddhist holy men aren't all that. Some of them are ass clown pederasts. Some of them are okay. Some are great. Others are just very ordinary or banal types who run around in saffron robes.

[giovonni]

Ultimately peace comes from the individual not any belief system, this is the world we are moving into.
Any system that is imposed will ultimately fail

Love to all

onward and upwards warts and all ... :)

[Tony]

If one directs one's energy to the teachings and
the understanding those teachings, one develops a good heart.
Good heart = easy path!

Some love politics.
Some love rituals.
Some love dictionaries.
Some love experience.

Being mindful of these activities is important.
However,they can either unite us or divide us.
This is why it is best to practise in isolation.

Our problem with communication is that it relies on the level
or context in which we are talking. When on retreat with scores
of people studying the same text under the same teacher,
we don't all see eye to eye.
Talking exacerbates divisions, and this is why retreats are in silence…
..fewer projections!
After the retreat, we can only smile and nod.

As we progress, any movement away from pure awareness
is an obstacle. However. the obstacle can also be the teacher.

Samsara (the vicious cycle of existence) is our teacher
but it's not to be taken too seriously. When we get to a certain age
we recognise, decide and maintain. Then we are ready to pass on.


Tony

[Tony]

Tony, Preaching drives me right out of my mind, whether it's coming from the East or Western traditions. You may not be particularly ego driven. I don't know, but just because some Buddhist priests yadayadayada about the dangers of ego, doesn't mean they aren't egomaniacal themselves. Buddhist holy men aren't all that. Some of them are ass clown pederasts. Some of them are okay. Some are great. Others are just very ordinary or banal types who run around in saffron robes.


Driving you out of your mind…sounds interesting!
If we are dissatisfied, then we can change.



Tony

[AutumnW]

If I am dissatisfied, I listen to my gut, assess the situation, summarize, draw flexible conclusions and communicate them. If the situation requires change on my part, I am actually okay with that, provided it makes sense. And conceding any kind of ground on a forum, in terms of personal cost ie ego, is nothing to me.

Some of the ideas I am reading here are contradictory. They are vague and ambiguous. Suggesting that there is a void in perception of the reader is like saying, "the Lord works in mysterious ways". The idea that we can be "beyond duality" for example, in this life, implies we should be reaching for some state or non state of amorphous goo-hood. You can "feel" at one and blissfully calm...but are still exposed to the laws of physics, and multi-causal forces acting on us all at all times. This is why people choose controlled environments to reach amorphous goo-hood in. Otherwise the meditator is going to get hurt.

[Shezbeth]

It appears the Dalai Lama is wearing his button through his finger. I'm not saying that one can't wear it that way, but I am saying that is not how I would wear it.

One could wax indefinitely about why he chose to wear it that way and I still would not agree to wear it so, nor would I agree that that is a better way to wear it than I would, if I even wore buttons.

Expound that metaphorically, and you have the basis for my contention to the thesis of this thread.

And yes, I recognize he is probably not wearing it through his finger.

[giovonni]

practice makes perfect ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8VYtk

[Tony]

Good Heart = Easy Path.

[giovonni]

Good Heart = Easy Path.

Always my Friend ... :)

[joeecho]

Banality of Evil is the elephant in the room.

It is what views my views as alien to yours and yours alien to mine.

What if neither view is entirely correct? My view is neither better or worse then yours.

If I was riding the elephant and you were somewhere around the elephant, which one sees it better?

Neither.

I see, for instance, the back and top of the head better then you but you see it's feet and belly better then I. But for some reason, one of us or both think it sees it better. (What is up with that?)

We have two eyes, one to view the elephant and one to view each other as One.

May we all find clarity in the right one.

http://www.ahigherself.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/elephant-in-the-room-2.jpg

[Milneman]

Good Heart = Easy Path.

If you had just started by saying that..... but....

NOOO you had to complicate it with Dharma ;) ;) ;)

(Having a cross between a Crazy Scottish Parson and Dogen Zenji moment. ;))

[Tony]

Good Heart = Easy Path.

If you had just started by saying that..... but....

NOOO you had to complicate it with Dharma ;) ;) ;)

(Having a cross between a Crazy Scottish Parson and Dogen Zenji moment. ;))


Well, not everyone is convinced that they simple have a good heart, as our minds get in the way.

Tony

¤=[Post Update]=¤ - sorry! I posted this too quickly and it's joined on :o

The Stainless Sphere of No Circumference

This is mind essence. Pure awareness. Sacred space. It is what we are.
This stainless sacred space embodies, through ignorance, a temporary form as dictated by karma.

Mind essence is pure. Through the bodily senses, we perceive phenomena, which appears in the mind.
Therefore, all appearances are first noted in the mind.

If we are aware of our pure nature, these appearances (whether pleasant or unpleasant) appear as
energies of light in the first instance. If untouched, these melt into the clear light of pure essence -
our clear light of bliss.

If this clear light of bliss becomes attracted to or repelled by external phenomena, it makes illusory
appearances seem solid. Essence becomes more attracted to the illusions than to its own nature.
Forgetting its own nature, a partial self is created, turning these energies of light into darkness.
Through habitual reactions and responses over eons, pure light becomes obscured by our habitual
clinging to illusory phenomena.

In an instant, the light can be turned on and all phantoms will disappear.
A moment of knowing dispels unknowing.
ENLIGHTENMENT IS WHEN THE LIGHT IS PERMANENTLY ON.

We all have different capacities of fluctuating between knowing and not knowing – of the light being
turned on and off. And so we live in a flickering world. Our capacity - our flicker rate – will be different
in every individual. Our job is to merely recognise. The more we recognise the dark, the more the light
is present. It's simply a matter of not reacting: non-reaction loosens the dark stains created.

The test for this is whether our response has an aftertaste: if we have circling thoughts and fixations,
that is merely a partial self clinging (an ego). If the response is stainless, there will be no aftertaste.

The important point to recognise is that these stains are not “bad”.
They are merely a recognition of misperception. That recognition is the unity of the two truths,
one reflecting the other: recognising the dark is the light itself. Like wetness and water, they cannot be separated.

At this level, there is no good or bad. There is merely misperception or pure perception

We all have an inkling of this truth because we all experience the flicker. :bump2:



Tony

[giovonni]

Thanks Tony for the thread ...

Last post ~ note my avatar has nothing to do with being a buddhist ...

it is only a simple representation of myself living under the tree of life ... :)



Always with Love

http://www.streamingfestival.com/img/news/about-the-human-condition-skeleton-poster-500.png
the Human condition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition)

[Milneman]

Good Heart = Easy Path.

If you had just started by saying that..... but....

NOOO you had to complicate it with Dharma ;) ;) ;)

(Having a cross between a Crazy Scottish Parson and Dogen Zenji moment. ;))


Well, not everyone is convinced that they simple have a good heart, as our minds get in the way.

Tony

¤=[Post Update]=¤ - sorry! I posted this too quickly and it's joined on :o

The Stainless Sphere of No Circumference

This is mind essence. Pure awareness. Sacred space. It is what we are.
This stainless sacred space embodies, through ignorance, a temporary form as dictated by karma.

Mind essence is pure. Through the bodily senses, we perceive phenomena, which appears in the mind.
Therefore, all appearances are first noted in the mind.

If we are aware of our pure nature, these appearances (whether pleasant or unpleasant) appear as
energies of light in the first instance. If untouched, these melt into the clear light of pure essence -
our clear light of bliss.

If this clear light of bliss becomes attracted to or repelled by external phenomena, it makes illusory
appearances seem solid. Essence becomes more attracted to the illusions than to its own nature.
Forgetting its own nature, a partial self is created, turning these energies of light into darkness.
Through habitual reactions and responses over eons, pure light becomes obscured by our habitual
clinging to illusory phenomena.

In an instant, the light can be turned on and all phantoms will disappear.
A moment of knowing dispels unknowing.
ENLIGHTENMENT IS WHEN THE LIGHT IS PERMANENTLY ON.

We all have different capacities of fluctuating between knowing and not knowing – of the light being
turned on and off. And so we live in a flickering world. Our capacity - our flicker rate – will be different
in every individual. Our job is to merely recognise. The more we recognise the dark, the more the light
is present. It's simply a matter of not reacting: non-reaction loosens the dark stains created.

The test for this is whether our response has an aftertaste: if we have circling thoughts and fixations,
that is merely a partial self clinging (an ego). If the response is stainless, there will be no aftertaste.

The important point to recognise is that these stains are not “bad”.
They are merely a recognition of misperception. That recognition is the unity of the two truths,
one reflecting the other: recognising the dark is the light itself. Like wetness and water, they cannot be separated.

At this level, there is no good or bad. There is merely misperception or pure perception

We all have an inkling of this truth because we all experience the flicker. :bump2:



Tony

Plantinga couldn't have said it better....John Calvin said relatively the same thing.

This round is on me, mate. :)

[Dorjezigzag]

Good Heart = Easy Path.

Some may disagree with this definitive statement

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/13200000/Jesus-jesus-13228849-470-309.jpg
http://www.bible-people.info/Copy_of_passion_fall.jpg

[Tony]

Good Heart = Easy Path.

Some may disagree with this definitive statement

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/13200000/Jesus-jesus-13228849-470-309.jpg
http://www.bible-people.info/Copy_of_passion_fall.jpg



We are talking about the good heart, not the good body.
Recognising suffering is our first steps to liberation,
with a good will and a good heart we shall arrive at
our destination to now-here.

The only thing that stands in our way is our own banality.



Tony

[Dorjezigzag]

We are talking about the good heart, not the good body.

you are
and so am I
which I guess makes we
this path is not always easy.

but his body,
which I never mentioned,
does not look in too good shape in this picture.

writing prose as though
it is a buddhist sutra
does not make it
more true
infact
the constant repetition
of style over substance
becomes somewhat banal
after a while.

Evil and reality cannot be defined within a box, they will always surprise, to think and expect as such is banal

"Castles Made Of Sand"

Down the street you can hear her scream "you're a disgrace"
As she slams the door in his drunken face,
And now he stands outside and all the neighbours start to gossip and drool.

He cries "Oh girl, you must be mad,
What happened to the sweet love you and me had?"
Against the door he leans and starts a scene,
And his tears fall and burn the garden green.

And so castles made of sand, fall in the sea, eventually.

A little Indian brave who before he was ten, played war games in
the woods with his Indian friends, and he built a dream that when he
grew up, he would be a fearless warrior Indian Chief.

Many moons passed and more the dream grew strong, until tomorrow
He would sing his first war song,
And fight his first battle, but something went wrong,
Suprise attack killed him in his sleep that night

And so castles made of sand, melts into the sea eventually.

There was a young girl, whose heart was a frown,
Because she was crippled for life, and couldn't speak a sound
And she wished and prayed she would stop living, so she decided to die.
She drew her wheel chair to the edge of the shore, and to her legs she smiled

"You won't hurt me no more."
But then a sight she'd never seen made her JUMP AND SAY
"Look, a golden winged ship is passing my way"
And it really didn't have to stop...it just kept on going.
And so castles made of sand slips into the sea,
Eventually

[Tony]

Good Heart = Easy Path.

If you had just started by saying that..... but....

NOOO you had to complicate it with Dharma ;) ;) ;)

(Having a cross between a Crazy Scottish Parson and Dogen Zenji moment. ;))


Well, not everyone is convinced that they simple have a good heart, as our minds get in the way.

Tony

¤=[Post Update]=¤ - sorry! I posted this too quickly and it's joined on :o

The Stainless Sphere of No Circumference

This is mind essence. Pure awareness. Sacred space. It is what we are.
This stainless sacred space embodies, through ignorance, a temporary form as dictated by karma.

Mind essence is pure. Through the bodily senses, we perceive phenomena, which appears in the mind.
Therefore, all appearances are first noted in the mind.

If we are aware of our pure nature, these appearances (whether pleasant or unpleasant) appear as
energies of light in the first instance. If untouched, these melt into the clear light of pure essence -
our clear light of bliss.

If this clear light of bliss becomes attracted to or repelled by external phenomena, it makes illusory
appearances seem solid. Essence becomes more attracted to the illusions than to its own nature.
Forgetting its own nature, a partial self is created, turning these energies of light into darkness.
Through habitual reactions and responses over eons, pure light becomes obscured by our habitual
clinging to illusory phenomena.

In an instant, the light can be turned on and all phantoms will disappear.
A moment of knowing dispels unknowing.
ENLIGHTENMENT IS WHEN THE LIGHT IS PERMANENTLY ON.

We all have different capacities of fluctuating between knowing and not knowing – of the light being
turned on and off. And so we live in a flickering world. Our capacity - our flicker rate – will be different
in every individual. Our job is to merely recognise. The more we recognise the dark, the more the light
is present. It's simply a matter of not reacting: non-reaction loosens the dark stains created.

The test for this is whether our response has an aftertaste: if we have circling thoughts and fixations,
that is merely a partial self clinging (an ego). If the response is stainless, there will be no aftertaste.

The important point to recognise is that these stains are not “bad”.
They are merely a recognition of misperception. That recognition is the unity of the two truths,
one reflecting the other: recognising the dark is the light itself. Like wetness and water, they cannot be separated.

At this level, there is no good or bad. There is merely misperception or pure perception

We all have an inkling of this truth because we all experience the flicker. :bump2:



Tony

Plantinga couldn't have said it better....John Calvin said relatively the same thing.

This round is on me, mate. :)





You are the winner.
There will always be the winner as long as there is an ego.



Tony

[Tony]

We are talking about the good heart, not the good body.

you are
and so am I
which I guess makes we
this path is not always easy.

but his body,
which I never mentioned,
does not look in too good shape in this picture.

writing prose as though
it is a buddhist sutra
does not make it
more true
infact
the constant repetition
of style over substance
becomes somewhat banal
after a while.

Evil and reality cannot be defined within a box, they will always surprise, to think and expect as such is banal

"Castles Made Of Sand"

Down the street you can hear her scream "you're a disgrace"
As she slams the door in his drunken face,
And now he stands outside and all the neighbours start to gossip and drool.

He cries "Oh girl, you must be mad,
What happened to the sweet love you and me had?"
Against the door he leans and starts a scene,
And his tears fall and burn the garden green.

And so castles made of sand, fall in the sea, eventually.

A little Indian brave who before he was ten, played war games in
the woods with his Indian friends, and he built a dream that when he
grew up, he would be a fearless warrior Indian Chief.

Many moons passed and more the dream grew strong, until tomorrow
He would sing his first war song,
And fight his first battle, but something went wrong,
Suprise attack killed him in his sleep that night

And so castles made of sand, melts into the sea eventually.

There was a young girl, whose heart was a frown,
Because she was crippled for life, and couldn't speak a sound
And she wished and prayed she would stop living, so she decided to die.
She drew her wheel chair to the edge of the shore, and to her legs she smiled

"You won't hurt me no more."
But then a sight she'd never seen made her JUMP AND SAY
"Look, a golden winged ship is passing my way"
And it really didn't have to stop...it just kept on going.
And so castles made of sand slips into the sea,
Eventually



If we have a problem with others, it is still our problem.
Compassion is challenging, but in that seeming challenge
is our teacher.


Tony
PS. Sorry for the way I write.

[loungelizard]

Good Heart = Easy Path.

Some may disagree with this definitive statement




Some may indeed: we are all free to live by our own beliefs and allow others the same courtesy.

But "easy path" is not synonymous with a" comfortable life". You must be familiar with bodhicitta motivation.

Viktor Frankl (a psychiatrist and a holocaust survivor) wrote:

“We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances. To choose one's own way.”


PS With respect, Dorje - do you dictate to everyone on this forum how they should present their writing? This has the flavour of an ad hominem attack: you are not addressing the content other than to waft vague accusations about "style over substance', but are attacking the OP's choice of presentation. I think you're reading far too much into things...I suppose that's what comes of writing on a "conspiracy forum" ;)

[Dorjezigzag]

Sorry for the way I write.

No you're not;)

You are free to write as you so choose,
but I am sure you aware that
This literary form was designed for concision, as the texts were intended to be memorized by students in some of the formal methods of scriptural and scientific study (Sanskrit: svādhyāya). Since each line is highly condensed.

As Project Avalon is recorded on a hard drive your students do not need to memorize your prose and so a more contemporary forum style of writing could be appropriate.

Of course it is your choice, there is a certain authority with this style of expression, as though your words are uttered by the master himself, although someone as beyond ego as your self of course would never use linguistic style in this way, I am sure your use is purely what you deem is most effective for your students.

[loungelizard]

Going back to the topic of this thread ;)

“Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”

I've been reading Viktor Frankl, and wonder whether this space that he talks about is the moment when evil can manifest - in the sense that the response we make to a stimulus can be dictated either by a selfish or selfless motivation.

The gratuitous acts of cruelty could committed by Eichmann (relating to the title of this thread) - according to Arendt's conclusions - because he chose not to think about them. He was able to ignore the space between stimulus (his orders and the law) and response (transporting thousands to the death camps in Poland) by refusing to indulge in moral speculation.

If he'd thought about it and looked into his conscience, I wonder he have acted differently...

Would we all agree that "evil-doers" are not "evil people"? My old mum used to take great comfort in believing that only bad people committed evil acts, but it's clear that you don't have to be a monster to perpetrate evil acts.

As Solzhenitsyn wrote:
“If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the dividing line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

[Dorjezigzag]

An evil act in the news at the moment of which there is nothing banal, except perhaps this kind of teenage rampage is becoming all to common place.

California shooting: Suspect is son of Hunger Games assistant director (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/05/24/seven_dead_in_california_driveby_shooting.html)

His statement before the killing was very revealing to me.

" It all has to come to this. Tomorrow is the day of retribution. The day in which I will have my revenge against humanity. Against all of you "

He saw himself as something other and humans as evil that needed to be punished.

This is the same thing with nazi against Jew, christian against muslim etc etc

This sense of seeing others as others, as yourself as pure and others as unpure and therefore needing to be sacrificed.

Perhaps there are times we should see the evil in our selves before pointing it at others,

[Tony]

Trying to keep to the topic isn't easy is it?

As an old typographer/designer, who used to get type set in hot melt,
we all knew that long lines do not read very well.
Calculating type was a glorious art, to see if the type fitted correctly.

In writing on a forum, one wishes to be as clear as possible, so the less words the better.
I've been accused many times for being too wordy. Well, you can't please everyone!

Back to the topic. The banality of evil starts three mental poisons, I like, I don't like, I don't care
– desire, aversion and indifference. Everything is taken personally.
This translates into defensiveness and personal attacks which gets threads closed.
Is this the intention?

From dislike, to hatred to evil actions, is all due to banal indifference – ignorance.

My writing style is due to text I read and enjoy.


Tony

[loungelizard]

As an old typographer/designer, who used to get type set in hot melt,
we all knew that long lines do not read very well.
Calculating type was a glorious art, to see if the type fitted correctly.


Damn! Such a banal explanation :love::love::love:

[loungelizard]

"Perhaps there are times we should see the evil in our selves before pointing it at others,"

The only bit of that I would disagree with is the "Perhaps"...:rolleyes:

[Dorjezigzag]

From dislike, to hatred to evil actions, is all due to banal indifference – ignorance

Another definitive statement that sounds very authoritative, that can be true but is not always true.

Many acts of evil are carried out with total awareness and many good hearted people are ignorant of many things. This is the very point I am trying to make the very act of definitively defining evil can lead to acts of evil. Once you think you have evil in a box you try and destroy the box. But you may well find that the very thing inside that box is you or your loved ones

Being honest with your self and to others about your motivations and intent is a way to avoid being caught in a box.

I am not being defensive as I have nothing to defend, I am not attacking I am merely genuinely curious and asking questions, if i were to meet my friend at the pub and he started to speak to me in Shakespearean english, I may question his motivations. It would be fun for a while, but then I might after a while I may wish he would talk to me more on a level, in a contemporary fashion.I am sure he would be fine but I may worry a little about him. I have seen a few friends go insane, one started believing he was jesus he dressed like him, spoke like him, you get the picture.

I ask questions,

Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

[Tony]

From dislike, to hatred to evil actions, is all due to banal indifference – ignorance

Another definitive statement that sounds very authoritative, that can be true but is not always true.

Many acts of evil are carried out with total awareness and many good hearted people are ignorant of many things. This is the very point I am trying to make the very act of definitively defining evil can lead to acts of evil. Once you think you have evil in a box you try and destroy the box. But you may well find that the very thing inside that box is you or your loved ones

Being honest with your self and to others about your motivations and intent is a way to avoid being caught in a box.

I am not being defensive as I have nothing to defend, I am not attacking I am merely genuinely curious and asking questions, if i were to meet my friend at the pub and he started to speak to me in Shakespearean english, I may question his motivations. It would be fun for a while, but then I might after a while I may wish he would talk to me more on a level, in a contemporary fashion.I am sure he would be fine but I may worry a little about him. I have seen a few friends go insane, one started believing he was jesus he dressed like him, spoke like him, you get the picture.

I ask questions,

Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”



Dear Dorjezigzag,

There is a cause for everything on a conventional level.

"Evil acts carried out with total awareness."
If so, then total awareness is not pure awareness.

A good heart is only part of the path.
We can still dwell in a duality, which may be refined.

What's in the boxare only are appearances in the mind,
pleasant and unpleasant, karmic reactions from previous banal activities.

Unless we understand the play of the two truth relative and absolute
there will always be confusion. Thereby creating more karma.

As Gampoa said, "May confusion dawn as wisdom."


Tony

[Tony]

Going back to the topic of this thread ;)

“Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”

I've been reading Viktor Frankl, and wonder whether this space that he talks about is the moment when evil can manifest - in the sense that the response we make to a stimulus can be dictated either by a selfish or selfless motivation.

The gratuitous acts of cruelty could committed by Eichmann (relating to the title of this thread) - according to Arendt's conclusions - because he chose not to think about them. He was able to ignore the space between stimulus (his orders and the law) and response (transporting thousands to the death camps in Poland) by refusing to indulge in moral speculation.

If he'd thought about it and looked into his conscience, I wonder he have acted differently...

Would we all agree that "evil-doers" are not "evil people"? My old mum used to take great comfort in believing that only bad people committed evil acts, but it's clear that you don't have to be a monster to perpetrate evil acts.

As Solzhenitsyn wrote:
“If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the dividing line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”




Hello Loungelizard,

"...space that he talks about is the moment when evil can manifest…"

Here we are talking about subtleties, and different view points.
And it depends if we are talking about a conventional reality or a spiritual reality.

If there is true space, a pure knowingness without a thing to be known, pure awareness, unelaborated space…our true being,
(which from an ultimate point of view is unconditional compassion), then no evil can exist.

Evil is when the mind or consciousness is full of fixations, it just reacts.
The opposite to Emptiness is Desire. Evil acts from no space, it is just programmed.

However saying this, we all know what we are doing, and there is a moment (if caught) that we can listen to our conscience or not.


Tony

[Tony]

The definitive meaning is beyond words, it is the actual experience.

In some traditions of buddhism there are nine levels, each using the same words
but the meaning is different. Each level is correct to suit an individuals needs.
http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Nine_yanas
or here http://www.phakchokrinpoche.org/study-and-practice/three-streams/the-full-nine-yanas-path

They are like stepping stones. Sometimes on hearing about the ninth yana we may
assume we do not need the others, this is a mistake. It all depends on our attitude,
behaviour or temperament which one we are actually in. Someone in the first yana
may display qualities in the ninth yana, and someone attending ninth yana teaching
may display qualities of a first yana student.


Much depends on how we relate to our and others emotions.

It is all based on levels of awareness and compassion.


Tony

[Delight]

Good Heart = Easy Path.

Some may disagree with this definitive statement




Some may indeed: we are all free to live by our own beliefs and allow others the same courtesy.

But "easy path" is not synonymous with a" comfortable life". You must be familiar with bodhicitta motivation.

Viktor Frankl (a psychiatrist and a holocaust survivor) wrote:

“We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances. To choose one's own way.”


PS With respect, Dorje - do you dictate to everyone on this forum how they should present their writing? This has the flavour of an ad hominem attack: you are not addressing the content other than to waft vague accusations about "style over substance', but are attacking the OP's choice of presentation. I think you're reading far too much into things...I suppose that's what comes of writing on a "conspiracy forum" ;)

Banal synonyms evoke a landscape with no juice.

"trite, hackneyed, clichéd, platitudinous, vapid, commonplace, ordinary, common, stock, conventional, stereotyped, overused, overdone, overworked, stale, worn out, timeworn, tired, threadbare, hoary, hack, unimaginative, humdrum, ho-hum, unoriginal, uninteresting, dull, uninvolving, trivial"

I loved Victor Frankel since reading him as a child. He said we innately search for meaning. Being connected to meaning holds greater power. His meaning was to live to share the humane compassion and determination to live "for a reason". He saw in a horrific place the human acts of love like sharing one's bread. He demonstrated that those who feel deep drive to fulfill an intention lived longer. Those who lost connection with purpose died.

One is tempted to tear one's hair to hear one more "expert" in any aspect disclaim over the cause of ills and the remedy that can be catalogued but never implemented.
Inability to move collectively beyond the round and round is seeming to beat down all joy.
"Am I evil?" was always the big question I asked even as a child. This was because in my home mundane forgiveness was not an option. One was told that if one made a mistake, it could never be undone.

I know that forgiveness is something new and fresh. We hardly know what to do with it? It is not about apology, making wrongs "right". It is so radical as to have no moorings, no bearings, no manual.

Repetition without a clean slate piles up and the accumulation of energetic debris. IMO wiped clean by radical forgiveness (even of concepts) may be the glowing, refreshing, invigorating, pulsating, flowing of life solution to this tired, fatigued and banal world.

[Dorjezigzag]

If so, then total awareness is not pure awareness

exactly
Who is the judge of purity,
YOU?
perhaps if you have dressed yourself in the language of supposed purity then you can be the judge of pure
a belief in the purity of a belief or a race has been the bane of mankind.

for example
Nazi Aryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race)

besides in my considered opinion which I have expressed time and time again, purification of attachments does not mean pure

as you have stated yourself

The definitive meaning is beyond words

pure is just a word, ones mans pure is an others dirty and if they both both think they are pure then we may have a conflict because the impure becomes evil

in my experience If a man starts calling himself pure then alarm bells always ring for me, because there actions are often far from pure as they judge the impure


When I talked of total awareness I am referring to total consciousness of an act, in the fact that they know it is wrong but they still do it, perhaps they think it is a means to an end or that they are eliminating impurity.

My particular expression of Total awareness is not to be confused with any level of spiritual attainment and should not be taken out of context

[Agape]

From Buddhist point of view .. the 'ground' , the unborn dharmakaya , is always pure .

Why questioning someones unknown purity .. unless your fear made your mind to mud .

We all are 'born' of pure intent . Whether you manifest such intent in this moment or not , whether you choose to experience your purity,
and what ways .. depends on you .

Manifesting full intent of your existence is important task .. loosing time in banalities of life feels almost always much easier than that .

What's pure of you can't be seen with muddled mind .


Words are but words . What's left in you , pure anger or pure joy ?

It better not be muddled distraction...


:tea:

[Wind]

Nothing wrong with the way you write Tony, it is easier to read that way. There are many text walls posted here on the forum (the empty can rattle the most) which I don't bother to read or I don't have the patience for them (my eyes get tired) But then again, I like poetry...

Sorry for being off topic, I don't have anything to contribute to this discussion, I'm just observing with interest as always. Carry on. ;)

[Agape]

Wind .. if you like some more poetry , read the Avadhuta Gita ...

I have this verse stuck in my mind that repeats itself at the end of its final chapters , it reads ..

Vindati avindati nahi nahi yatra

Chando alakshanam nahi nahi tatra

Samarasamagno bhavita putaha

Pralapati tatvam paramavadhutaha

It means ... roaming or not roaming , he can not be found

there is no sign or lack of to mark his presence

born of the fire of self-born existence

the son of the fool ..the liberated soul..talks as it comes ;)


And for the other people who don't like poetry there's at least screen cleaner :

http://www.freescreencleaner.com

[Wind]

Thank you Agape, I will do so. A while ago I finished Tao The Ching, before it the Bhagavad Gita, now I've been mostly reading Rumi and Kahlil Gibran. That screen cleaner made me laugh! :laugh:

[Dorjezigzag]

From Buddhist point of view .. the 'ground' , the unborn dharmakaya , is always pure .

Why questioning someones unknown purity .. unless your fear made your mind to mud .

We all are 'born' of pure intent . Whether you manifest such intent in this moment or not , whether you choose to experience your purity,
and what ways .. depends on you .

Manifesting full intent of your existence is important task .. loosing time in banalities of life feels almost always much easier than that .

What's pure of you can't be seen with muddled mind .


Words are but words . What's left in you , pure anger or pure joy ?

It better not be muddled distraction...


:tea:



I question someones purity because it does not exist, it is a word it is not the thing it self.

I question what has repeatedly done in the name of purity

According to Buddhist text most of us are born with Karma,

The scriptures have been interpreted and translated so much no one can be sure of there purity

Purified of attachment does not necessarily mean pure, being empty is exactly that it is beyond words, no matter how pure the word may be

It is easy for people to say they are pure, it is harder to admit they are not perfect and face their impurities, if you think you are pure how can you purify

at the moment i am not feeling anger or joy, I am feeling a little tired just done 2 hours of yoga but I feel quite content, a mixture of various feelings, rarely do we purely experience anything and you know what I do not want to purely experience anything gets a little banal after a while.


Love the poem, now that's real poetry, not definitive, open to interpretation a sense of mystery, like the use of the fool, the beginning card of the Tarot, we may strive for the final card of perfection and purity, the world, but , if we are to grow we must throw our selves into the unknown and be the fool.


It means ... roaming or not roaming , he can not be found

there is no sign or lack of to mark his presence

born of the fire of self-born existence

the son of the fool ..the liberated soul..talks as it comes

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/3a/ee/3aee5a073b3d9626386efb32b04a09a5.jpg?itok=QV2GVj9Y

[Tony]

If so, then total awareness is not pure awareness

exactly
Who is the judge of purity,
YOU?
perhaps if you have dressed yourself in the language of supposed purity then you can be the judge of pure
a belief in the purity of a belief or a race has been the bane of mankind.

for example
Nazi Aryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race)

besides in my considered opinion which I have expressed time and time again, purification of attachments does not mean pure

as you have stated yourself

The definitive meaning is beyond words

pure is just a word, ones mans pure is an others dirty and if they both both think they are pure then we may have a conflict because the impure becomes evil

in my experience If a man starts calling himself pure then alarm bells always ring for me, because there actions are often far from pure as they judge the impure


When I talked of total awareness I am referring to total consciousness of an act, in the fact that they know it is wrong but they still do it, perhaps they think it is a means to an end or that they are eliminating impurity.

My particular expression of Total awareness is not to be confused with any level of spiritual attainment and should not be taken out of context











Who 'thinks' they are pure?
That is merely an elaboration of one's self view.

The word Buddha means knowing one's true nature and purifying all karmic deeds.
We all have Buddha nature (awakened nature) but it is covered up by elaborate ideas of ourselves.

We are confused beings. That confusion is our path.
As Agape inferred, there is Ground, Path, and Fruition.

The Ground is our pure nature.
The Path is our confusion about that pure nature.
The Fruition in recognising the the confusion never existed
and that we are the Ground all along.


Enlightenment is our full potential - Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirmankaya -
which is our empty essence, cognisant nature and unconfined compassion.


It's good to know where we are going. We choose the method that suits us, and works.
It is for every individual to decide whether we are satisfied, confident and happy with our view.
Whatever we decide can always be refined.

Tony

[Tony]

From Buddhist point of view .. the 'ground' , the unborn dharmakaya , is always pure .

Why questioning someones unknown purity .. unless your fear made your mind to mud .

We all are 'born' of pure intent . Whether you manifest such intent in this moment or not , whether you choose to experience your purity,
and what ways .. depends on you .

Manifesting full intent of your existence is important task .. loosing time in banalities of life feels almost always much easier than that .

What's pure of you can't be seen with muddled mind .


Words are but words . What's left in you , pure anger or pure joy ?

It better not be muddled distraction...


:tea:



I question someones purity because it does not exist, it is a word it is not the thing it self.

I question what has repeatedly done in the name of purity

According to Buddhist text most of us are born with Karma,

The scriptures have been interpreted and translated so much no one can be sure of there purity

Purified of attachment does not necessarily mean pure, being empty is exactly that it is beyond words, no matter how pure the word may be

It is easy for people to say they are pure, it is harder to admit they are not perfect and face their impurities, if you think you are pure how can you purify

at the moment i am not feeling anger or joy, I am feeling a little tired just done 2 hours of yoga but I feel quite content, a mixture of various feelings, rarely do we purely experience anything and you know what I do not want to purely experience anything gets a little banal after a while.


Love the poem, now that's real poetry, not definitive, open to interpretation a sense of mystery, like the use of the fool, the beginning card of the Tarot, we may strive for the final card of perfection and purity, the world, but , if we are to grow we must throw our selves into the unknown and be the fool.


It means ... roaming or not roaming , he can not be found

there is no sign or lack of to mark his presence

born of the fire of self-born existence

the son of the fool ..the liberated soul..talks as it comes

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/3a/ee/3aee5a073b3d9626386efb32b04a09a5.jpg?itok=QV2GVj9Y










The purity of ego does not exist: the idea of self can never be pure.
Purity is an absolute term. The purity - or emptiness - is in the non-finding of a knower.
In emptiness there is merely knowingness.

However, to engage in the world we need a little ego. We are all born with karma (that
is why we are still sentient, and not enlightened).

Everything has a cause, and that cause has an effect.
That effect leave an imprint in the mind, and that is karma.
So our reactions are due to previous karma – previous reactions.
It is we who set up a pattern of behaviour.

If we pause and do not just react, no karma is created.
However, because of previous karma, we still have to go through
the same situations again and again until we learn.




Tony

[Shezbeth]

The issue that Dorje seems to be presenting - and one I find there is substance and quality to - is that purity is a concept that is not quantifiable. One can equally be said to pursue it and to 'possess' it without asserting anything tangible. All the while, there is the implication that one 'is' or has 'done' something of substance and/or significance. Perhaps in a subjective sense (internally) one has, but the promotion of it belies any objective gain, benefit, or (most importantly) practical value. Truly, the purest expression would be to not express, and any expression that 'points to' or advocates purity is a contradiction.

If purity can be said to be pursued or possessed it rightfully (definitively) is something that should be done internally and without allusion or promotion; promotion of purity is self-defeating. Often when a person does so, it is with the intent of subtly and rhetorically contesting behaviors and practices which one doesn't engage in, while simultaneously attempting to promote and/or laud their own actions and behaviors; there are overt and obvious expressions also (and others). The same can be said of the concept of evil and/or the banality of it. The suggestion is that evil - as I have objectively defined earlier in this thread - is banal, or the many synonyms Agape was kind enough to identify (though I notice 'vacuous' was omitted).

I agree that there is banality to evil, in that any observable banality is in the assertion of something being 'evil' or in the general concept of 'evil', and not from any behaviors from which the qualifier is applied to. In this thinking, 'purity', 'pure', and similar corollaries are equally banal - as is the espousal of - in addition to being contrary to the very idea expressed.


We are all born with karma (that is why we are still sentient, and not enlightened).

The obvious interpretation to this statement is that enlightenment is an absence of sentience or consciousness. I wonder how this statement can be made with any credibility.

[Tony]

The issue that Dorje seems to be presenting - and one I find there is substance and quality to - is that purity is a concept that is not quantifiable. One can equally be said to pursue it and to 'possess' it without asserting anything tangible. All the while, there is the implication that one 'is' or has 'done' something of substance and/or significance. Perhaps in a subjective sense (internally) one has, but the promotion of it belies any objective gain, benefit, or (most importantly) practical value. Truly, the purest expression would be to not express, and any expression that 'points to' or advocates purity is a contradiction.

If purity can be said to be pursued or possessed it rightfully (definitively) is something that should be done internally and without allusion or promotion; promotion of purity is self-defeating. Often when a person does so, it is with the intent of subtly and rhetorically contesting behaviors and practices which one doesn't engage in, while simultaneously attempting to promote and/or laud their own actions and behaviors; there are overt and obvious expressions also (and others). The same can be said of the concept of evil and/or the banality of it. The suggestion is that evil - as I have objectively defined earlier in this thread - is banal, or the many synonyms Agape was kind enough to identify (though I notice 'vacuous' was omitted).

I agree that there is banality to evil, in that any observable banality is in the assertion of something being 'evil' or in the general concept of 'evil', and not from any behaviors from which the qualifier is applied to. In this thinking, 'purity', 'pure', and similar corollaries are equally banal - as is the espousal of - in addition to being contrary to the very idea expressed.


We are all born with karma (that is why we are still sentient, and not enlightened).

The obvious interpretation to this statement is that enlightenment is an absence of sentience or consciousness. I wonder how this statement can be made with any credibility.







No one said that it was absent of consciousness.
We as sentient beings are obsessed with OUR consciousness.

Enlightenment is not oblivion: there are wisdom qualities present.
What we are talking about is extremely subtle, and involves an
understanding of the two truths - relative and absolute.




Tony

[Agape]

The issue that Dorje seems to be presenting - and one I find there is substance and quality to - is that purity is a concept that is not quantifiable. One can equally be said to pursue it and to 'possess' it without asserting anything tangible. All the while, there is the implication that one 'is' or has 'done' something of substance and/or significance. Perhaps in a subjective sense (internally) one has, but the promotion of it belies any objective gain, benefit, or (most importantly) practical value. Truly, the purest expression would be to not express, and any expression that 'points to' or advocates purity is a contradiction.



It's exactly why I remind myself of the screenasaver dog - licking the screen - to clean it , now that itself has to be questioned because with most probability they treated the screen with sausages - and I'm not trying to compare the dogs low and biological intents to yours .
However , no matter how hard he tries , the screen is going to end up about the same muddled as it was at the beginning .

The concept of purity , quite like the concept of Truth in Buddhism and other Eastern philosophical schools of understanding is twofold , there's relative purity - and relative truth and absolute purity - and absolute truth ( and the same principle can be applied to countless other categories ) .

Allow me to insert this much ... and I'll be unfortunately repeating myself here ... Buddhist , Hindu , even Christian or other faiths and mind cultivation practitioners who were not exactly brought up in those cultures but 'learn' them in isolated manner , against the mirror and contradiction existing and enhanced in western philosophy - the superiority of skepticism - more often than not end up living in long lasting philosophical paradox for their lives .

The positive and negative polarities - hemispheres - ways of understanding in our brain are equally strong . Energy - described as prana - the breath of life - is one the most important characterisers of whatever living organism there is and strives in the Universe .

Interestingly enough , many of the concepts of relative purity and impurity in the Hindu ( Vedic ) culture were somehow attached to what could be described as 'chirality' in terms of modern biological science .

For example :

“Life could have emerged from either left or right handed amino acids, but not both,” said Mindy Levine, an organic chemist at the University of Rhode Island, who wrote her 2008 doctoral thesis on the origin of biological chirality. “There’s nothing to prevent life from developing from right-handed amino acids, it just happened that on our planet the left-handed amino acids were what was available.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2013/06/29/lifes-left-handed-amino-acids-remain-astrobiological-head-scratcher/

While at the same time ..most of your DNA is 'right-handed' :


Try this now: point your index finger and turn it clockwise while moving your arm forward. What you are doing is depicting the right-handed screw of DNA. Do the same and rotate anti-clockwise, and you have the shape of a DNA molecule that doesn't exist. Sixty years and five days ago, Francis Crick and James Watson revealed that iconic shape. In that slight article, the double helix was drawn by Odile Crick, former code-breaker, graphic artist, and Francis's wife. It has a simplicity and grace that disguises its colossal power – a ladder twisting up to the right. We now know how dynamic DNA is as it goes about its business, shown in the gorgeous movies made by the doyenne of bio-animations Drew Berry.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/apr/30/dna-twist-to-right

OjPcT1uUZiE


What does it mean ? The two 'simple' directions of vital force display different properties when they're in 'loose' form , where there don't form 'base of life' , and they display opposite chirality when they do.
It's very symbolical - if not identical with understanding of left-coiled 'mother energy' of the Universe and right-coiled father-energy who is the controller and organiser of life .
The simple principle has been observed and expanded on , not only in Vedas , in many other ancient traditions and scriptures , via rules and directional instructions ,
since mankind existed .

What am I trying to explain here is that 'purity' of body, speech and mind .. as Vedic - pre-buddhist concept can be relative - as both essential energies and building blocks of life are inherently pure - and it is when you 'break the rule' against their nature that you create 'disorder' in their functioning .

If you twist the joint of your wrist in any direction too far it will result in damage . The 'impurity' is your fault, not nature's fault , not other persons fault .

From both Vedic and Buddhist point of view - but we can freely assert that any tradition with gnostic background will fall to the same category - the reason why you can purify your 'ignorance' or 'karma' is because you are inherently pure .
If you were born as manifestation of impurity ..there's be no way to fix you up.

This point - directionally again - creates huge distinction between natural understanding of life in religious societies ( I use the term 'religious' very loosely here ) and those maintaining its culture and education on strictly secular - skeptical grounds today .
The basic instruction you seem to get in such secular society is : question everything, nothing is ever 'pure' , nothing is as it seems, there's no God in the equation, no absolute value .

Now , even if Buddhism does not operate with the term God .. it still , like countless eastern philosophical schools before him contemplates in both relative and absolute terms about the base and nature of life.
Many 'pure Buddhist' ( here the term would like with many other 'purists' turn misguiding ) forget that Buddha was born to fairly complicated Vedic , Brahmanical culture - tradition that preceded him in thousands of years and it again had its own preceding and so forth . Concepts he's 'refined' - purified - for the sake of clarity and better , ethical and philosophical understanding , already existed . He did not invent those terms . He's practised them , refuted some , followed others and made his own conclusions.

Buddhism is not shunya-vada : it's not a-theism , nihilism or talk of emptiness , as some of the 19th century 'western pundits' tried to interpret it , devoid of its 'nature' , philosophical and cultural links and connotations .

I like to compare the teachings of Prajna-paramita of Buddha to Einsteinian relativity , with deeper psychological implications and broader contemplative understanding,
minus the equations,
they're essentially one and the same .

What Buddha spoke of was extremely refined , subtle truth .. that required equally refined minds to grasp its full meaning .
Of course to this day , majority of 'Buddhists' can not follow . Some repeat mantras , others sit in meditation and stare to the wall for life and dwell in blankest state of mind possible, thinking they 'found it' .

Like many other 'enlightened' philosophers, Buddha was pointing somewhere .. to the nature of reality .. where you can reach only with help of the sharp tools of your own mind and purifying those 'tools' , mental faculties, whether they're called emotions, ego or consciousness , while allowing their healthy function is absolutely essential in order to see the right way .

What's the use of the debate whether your eye nerve is pure , whether your iris and white of the eye and tears are pure , when the important factor is whether your eye can see .




:ufo:

[Agape]

I found an old but interesting article ....

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/universo/cosmos11.htm

Left-Handed Molecules Among the Building Blocks of Life


The dominance of left-handed molecules among the building blocks of life might not be a trick of the light.(The more important implication is that it may ; note ) ) . Researchers in Belgium have found that the structure of two of the amino acids that make up proteins cannot be explained by a rare form of ultraviolet light in the interstellar cloud where Earth was born, as some astronomers had thought.

Amino acids come in two mirror-image forms, but life opts almost exclusively for the so-called left-handed form. Last year, astronomers showed that the Orion Molecular Cloud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_Molecular_Cloud_Complex) - adjoining the Orion Nebula - contained circularly polarized light that preferentially destroyed right-handed amino acids (New Scientist, 8 August 1998, p 11).http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15921461.400-inner-circles.html

Now two Belgian scientists have cast doubt on this theory. In a paper to be published in the journal Space Science Reviews, biochemist Corinne Cerf and astrophysicist Alain Jorissen of the Free University of Brussels say that the cosmic mechanism for destroying right-handed amino acids might not work for tryptophan and proline, two of the twenty amino acids commonly used by living organisms.

The electric field of circularly polarized light rotates one of two ways around its direction of motion. Each of the right and left-handed forms of the amino acid molecules absorbs one type of light better than the other. If only one type is present, that light can break down the mirror form that absorbs it more efficiently.

Astronomers suggested that this might have happened in the interstellar cloud from which the Earth congealed, having found only one type of circularly polarized light in the Orion Nebula.

But Cerf and Jorissen found two exceptions to the theory when they looked at how amino acids absorb ultraviolet light.
"The data show that tryptophan and proline do not behave like other amino acids," says Jorissen.
As a result, both their mirror forms might survive in the presence of just one type of light. The researchers think this may happen because of differences in the structure of the side chains of these molecules.

According to Stephen Mason of King's College London, Cerf and Jorissen are correct that circularly polarized light cannot select for one form of tryptophan and proline. But he argues that although some wavelengths preferentially destroy right-handed amino acids, other wavelengths destroy left-handed ones.

As the light from stars covers a wide range of wavelengths, Mason says that overall effect on the handedness of amino acids should be zero.



http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/life-turned-left.html


NASA and University Researchers Find a Clue to How Life Turned Left


Researchers analyzing meteorite fragments that fell on a frozen lake in Canada have developed an explanation for the origin of life's handedness – why living things only use molecules with specific orientations. The work also gave the strongest evidence to date that liquid water inside an asteroid leads to a strong preference of left-handed over right-handed forms of some common protein amino acids in meteorites. The result makes the search for extraterrestrial life more challenging.

"Our analysis of the amino acids in meteorite fragments from Tagish Lake gave us one possible explanation for why all known life uses only left-handed versions of amino acids to build proteins," said Dr. Daniel Glavin of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Glavin is lead author of a paper on this research to be published in the journal Meteoritics and Planetary Science.

In January, 2000, a large meteoroid exploded in the atmosphere over northern British Columbia, Canada, and rained fragments across the frozen surface of Tagish Lake. Because many people witnessed the fireball, pieces were collected within days and kept preserved in their frozen state. This ensured that there was very little contamination from terrestrial life. "The Tagish Lake meteorite continues to reveal more secrets about the early Solar System the more we investigate it," said Dr. Christopher Herd of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, a co-author on the paper who provided samples of the Tagish Lake meteorite for the team to analyze. "This latest study gives us a glimpse into the role that water percolating through asteroids must have played in making the left-handed amino acids that are so characteristic of all life on Earth."

Proteins are the workhorse molecules of life, used in everything from structures like hair to enzymes, the catalysts that speed up or regulate chemical reactions. Just as the 26 letters of the alphabet are arranged in limitless combinations to make words, life uses 20 different amino acids in a huge variety of arrangements to build millions of different proteins. Amino acid molecules can be built in two ways that are mirror images of each other, like your hands. Although life based on right-handed amino acids would presumably work fine, they can't be mixed. "Synthetic proteins created using a mix of left- and right-handed amino acids just don't work," says Dr. Jason Dworkin of NASA Goddard, co-author of the study and head of the Goddard Astrobiology Analytical Laboratory, where the analysis was performed. ..............

[Shezbeth]

No one said that it was absent of consciousness.
We as sentient beings are obsessed with OUR consciousness.

Enlightenment is not oblivion: there are wisdom qualities present.
What we are talking about is extremely subtle, and involves an
understanding of the two truths - relative and absolute.

Is there another way of interpreting the phrase "why we are still conscious (and not enlightened)"? It certainly seems to suggest that consciousness is a response to and result of karma, and that absent it we would be 'enlightened'. Perhaps it is a poor choice of words then?

Besides that, one can infer that another doesn't understand the concepts of relative and absolute truth; that does not make it true. Disagreement is not evidence of a lack of understanding, it is a lack of concurrence. If one fails to grasp relative (subjective) truth (and its limitations) how can one be said to grasp absolute truth, nevermind that absolute truth is illusory and theoretical?

Image: The stair-master. One can make infinite steps upward, and still not go anywhere. The body is conditioned by this practice and develops an increasing proficiency in the act, and still the individual does not go anywhere. When the individual finally stops using the stair-master, they are precisely where they began.

There are other ways of exercising the body that likewise get a person nowhere, and many of them are more effective than the stair-master.


Buddhist , Hindu , even Christian or other faiths and mind cultivation practitioners who were not exactly brought up in those cultures but 'learn' them in isolated manner , against the mirror and contradiction existing and enhanced in western philosophy - the superiority of skepticism - more often than not end up living in long lasting philosophical paradox for their lives.

Everyone lives their life in a paradox, regardless their origins, conditioning, or viewpoint. I do not claim a lack of paradox in my viewpoint, but neither will I admit to a lack in another's. Growing up with/among a particular tradition does not increase or decrease one's receptivity or capability to understand it. Indeed, the core of my insistence surrounds this idea and the cognizant admission of it.

I could summarize your statement as saying: "One who attempts to practice an authoritarian tradition after learning not to submit to authoritarian programming will be less than successful."

You have admitted the puppy screen cleaning will be ineffective, yet the thesis of this thread continues to promote a practice which amounts to a puppy cleaning a screen? Bollux.

[Tony]

No one said that it was absent of consciousness.
We as sentient beings are obsessed with OUR consciousness.

Enlightenment is not oblivion: there are wisdom qualities present.
What we are talking about is extremely subtle, and involves an
understanding of the two truths - relative and absolute.

Is there another way of interpreting the phrase "why we are still conscious (and not enlightened)"? It certainly seems to suggest that consciousness is a response to and result of karma, and that absent it we would be 'enlightened'. Perhaps it is a poor choice of words then?

Besides that, one can infer that another doesn't understand the concepts of relative and absolute truth; that does not make it true. Disagreement is not evidence of a lack of understanding, it is a lack of concurrence. If one fails to grasp relative (subjective) truth (and its limitations) how can one be said to grasp absolute truth, nevermind that absolute truth is illusory and theoretical?

Image: The stair-master. One can make infinite steps upward, and still not go anywhere. The body is conditioned by this practice and develops an increasing proficiency in the act, and still the individual does not go anywhere. When the individual finally stops using the stair-master, they are precisely where they began.

There are other ways of exercising the body that likewise get a person nowhere, and many of them are more effective than the stair-master.


Buddhist , Hindu , even Christian or other faiths and mind cultivation practitioners who were not exactly brought up in those cultures but 'learn' them in isolated manner , against the mirror and contradiction existing and enhanced in western philosophy - the superiority of skepticism - more often than not end up living in long lasting philosophical paradox for their lives.

Everyone lives their life in a paradox, regardless their origins, conditioning, or viewpoint. I do not claim a lack of paradox in my viewpoint, but neither will I admit to a lack in another's. Growing up with/among a particular tradition does not increase or decrease one's receptivity or capability to understand it. Indeed, the core of my insistence surrounds this idea and the cognizant admission of it.

I could summarize your statement as saying: "One who attempts to practice an authoritarian tradition after learning not to submit to authoritarian programming will be less than successful."

You have admitted the puppy screen cleaning will be ineffective, yet the thesis of this thread continues to promote a practice which amounts to a puppy cleaning a screen? Bollux.















Dear Shezbeth

I agree with you: finding the right wording is difficult, and different paths use language differently (in Tibetan, the same word has many diverse meanings, especially words such as “consciousness” which they refer to “consciousnesses” which is why translators use the words awareness, perception or cognisance). I've been on a few spiritual paths and language (elite jargon!) can be very confusing...so it's all to do with context, and the person to whom one is speaking. We're a mixed bag on the forum, and so have a variety of mindsets.

From a relative point of view, on the stair-master (I take it that's an exercise machine?) we are going nowhere. From an absolute point of view, we are now here. From a relative point of view, there is time: me observing something. From an absolute point of view, there is no such thing as time: now cannot be found, but is spontaneously present as the moment it is recognised, it is in the past.

One of the problems we find is that we are trying to fit ourselves into phrases when really, the phrases are to express an experience. It's difficult on a forum because statements have to be made in order for questions to arise. The answer is a formula of understanding the question; in the Hitchhiker's Guide, the ultimate answer is 42, which doesn't make sense without the correct question. It's only to those who have studied and asked the right questions that Einstein's theory of relativity MC2 makes sense.

Similarly, pure awareness is a formula and makes no sense unless we experience and then ask the right question. The formula of pure awareness is infinitally more powerful than MC2. MC2 can make a big hole. Pure awareness destroys everything :-)

I understand that many things I say (or even the way I say them) can appear annoying: they did to me when I first came across them, as they started to shake my fixated ideas. Questions arise, and in those questions is the answer for that individual, and it's for that individual to recognise what is in their own mind – if they can get clear of their emotions (if not, they stay on the stair-master!) - even though, on a deeper level, the emotions are the key to wisdom but it will take some subtle steps to understand that. This is the precise teaching of the two truths.

Pure awareness sometimes feels a million miles away (I actually spoke about this with one of my teachers, and he, as usual, was very Zen-ish and didn't reply, leaving it up to me to find an answer). Pure awareness is what we are, but it is surrounded by a mass of hostile concepts.

With regard to the banality of evil: on an ordinary level, emotions and thoughts are merely part of life – part of the prison doors. In meditation – or pure, non-meditation – thoughts are a total distraction. Eastern traditions speak of Mara (demons) playing games to distract us, using our own frailties to disrupt. This is not a common concept in the West - Mara are disembodied practitioners who never understood emptiness but who have limited powers, rather like embodied beings who have knowledge but no understanding of emptiness and compassion and so use their knowledge as a weapon: from a spiritual perspective, we have to recognise that this can happen and that's why empathy and compassion are so important. Power to others is only given by our consent. It's a bit like when someone appears vulnerable, this opens them up to attack, which encourages others to join in: if one has a firm foundation in compassion, Mara has no effect. Funnily enough, it actually enhances the practice: in the final moments before the Buddha's enlightenment, he was attacked by Mara, as was Christ.

All understanding can be refined. Someone spoke about people being able to commit evil in “total awareness”: they are not totally aware...not one being on this planet who has done something evil was totally aware, as they have bias.

From a spiritual point of view, total awareness is the opposite: barely being aware. If we are too aware, we fixate on the awareness. Barely being aware is a balance between awareness and emptiness, and is non-conceptual. Non-dual, as there is merely awareness and no one watching it. “I am that which I seek”. The Buddha taught, “Not too tight, not too loose”.

The point is that we all have to go through stages and steps for our own understanding to develop, and this has to be constantly tested.

Love is challenging, but on recognition, all there is is love. An expression of our true nature. There is also the way of devotion, which is not easy for the Western ear to hear (I've had great problems with this) where blessings are received. Both compassion and devotion take oneself out of the picture.

We're talking here about our spiritual qualities, not our mental and physical existence, and this may not be everyone's cup of tea :-) Unfortunately, forums can become hostile, and this is the antithesis of open minded investigation and analysis.

So far, so good :-)



Tony

[Tony]

There are two approaches to realisation: One is gradual:bathbaby:, and the other is a shock:emptybath:.


Tony

[Dorjezigzag]

1000000s of unenlightened people are generally pretty decent people, they may be a little foolish now and then but all in all they are pretty good to the fellow man while enjoying a joke and a laugh at their foolishness along the way. Most people don't kill others, or act in violence, more will perhaps cheat and steal, but they know it is wrong and will usually curb their behavior.

Some may for many reasons engage in evil acts, some will feel guilt, others will not

It is not a case of enlightened( if it actually exists) -good
unenlightened- evil

There are many good unenlightened people, some of them are pretty ignorant

Very few people go into war because they want to fight in the name of evil
but many wars have been raged in the name of purity.
How much evil has been enacted in the name of purity
Who is the judge of pure
What exactly is 'pure'
we can argue this until the cows come home.
There are so many different denominations in all the major religions for this very reason.

If you find a way of being that is beneficial to you as an individual, great, if you want to call this purity, marvelous, share it, tell me about it, just don't impose it if i do not share your concept of purity.


Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

[Tony]

The Buddha said: “Do good. Do no evil. Tame the mind”.

The word Buddha comprises of two syllables:
Bud - recognising our awakened nature = Good
dha - purifying defilements in the mind = Evil

Taming the mind is recognising our true nature = Good
and recognising the defilements that overpower us = Evil

While we do not recognise our true nature and have not purified our defilements,
we remain as sentient beings, and not enlightened.

Evil causes harm. Good purifies harm.

It's clear that transferring these ultimate statements into conventional, emotional
terms weakens our understanding: we assume that we are good and others are evil.
This distracts us from a realistic view what is happening within our own minds,
and permits the creation of judgements based upon emotions, which lack the
discernment to discriminate between what is ultimately harmful and what is beneficial.

The meaning of evil has been distorted into a moral judgement which obscures our spiritual element.



Tony

[Tony]

Our thoughts are not our own.
Edward Bernays and othe psychologists knew how to manipulate minds,
because they know how we are a slave to out emotions.
Edward Bernays (Freud's nephew) 22-10-1891 -- 9-3-1995



We consent to evil, because we do not tame our minds.

qiKMmrG1ZKU

EbmgsIQwrzA




Truth need repeating.

The Buddha said,
“Do good
Do no evil
Tame the mind.”
This sounds so ordinary, but is so profound.

The Buddha knew his statement would last for thousands of years, because of its simplicity and profundity.
Every individual will understand this at their own level. The more one analyses, the more it refines.

However we are living in an era where the power of words are being weakened, and so we become apathetic.
Apathetic: dull, disinterested, but highly emotionally charged.
We are not doing good.
We are doing evil
and not taming the mind.

We are living in a very material world more attracted to things and self image, than the state of our minds.
As we can only relate to things and self image, we find no true satisfaction. We spend our precious time
living in a group dream, (make that nightmare!).
More people than ever are depressed and taking pills of some sort.

Corporations feed and feed off our dullness, disinterest, and confusion. Unfortunately the corporations are
full of worker who are confused, dull, disinterest who are engaged to maintain this dreamy state.
Everywhere one turns, the world is pouring out misinformation.

This is why repeating truth is so important.
When we are tired of hearing the truth, we are too tired to wake up.

Do good
Do no evil
Tame the mind.
Do good
Do no evil
Tame the mind.
Do good
Do no evil
Tame the mind.
Do good
Do no evil
Tame the mind.
Do good
Do no evil
Tame the mind.
Do good
Do no evil
Tame the mind….!


Tony

[Tony]

Auspicious utterances.

To create favourable conditions, by prayer or positive unity.
A supportive space which is conducive to freedom from fear.
In other words, an expression of our true nature.

"May all sentient beings find happiness
and the causes of happiness.
May they be free from suffering
and the causes of suffering."



Tony







Auspicious:
Conducive to success; favourable
Giving or being a sign of future success
Characterized by success; prosperous.
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from auspice + -ous.

[Tony]

We learn, and learn little.

On completing his studies, the wise old master said to the student,
“Every situation is an opportunity.” The student went on his way with joy on their heart.

Second scenario.

On completing his studies, another student said to the student, “Every situation is an opportunity.”
The student thought, “Who does he think he's talking to?”

Conclusion: We can realise more from the other student, than we can from the master!


Drop it!
9sp3ILaKnkg
...Until the next tree situation!;)



Tony

[Sierra]

A request to move this thread to the spirituality forum has been received.

It does seem to be an accurate fit, moving thread ... :)

[Tony]

You are right this is a spiritual quest.

Even though evil is a psychological problem, it is dealt with from a spiritual perspective,
and so it's right that this should be in the spiritual section.

Now we can turn our attention to protecting and healing against evil. Evil is that which causes harm.
The process of protecting ourselves and others, and thereby healing, is by not consenting to outer
and inner influences. Very simply, this is achieved by not reacting, and recognising our true nature.

Evil is the accumulation of defilements in the mind: anything that obscures pure vision.
If you want to see pure awareness at work, merely look at your own hand: you find that there is
nothing to think about. Just observe. It's that simple. That same pure vision observes all phenomena
and concepts within the mind. If we deal with the psychology of the mind with more psychology,
we end up with...more psychology. If we deal with it through more philosophy, we end up with
more...theories and ideas. Our power rests within our spiritual aspect.

The world around wants us to consent to its fantasies. I know this will sound trite, but our only
weapon is love. And the understanding that evil has no inherent existence. This doesn't mean there
are not dark forces, but they can only exist by feeding off the insecurities and emotions that have
their origin in a strong feeling of I.

If we can arrive at a state of mutual trust, then we can proceed. In my garden there are five pheasants
and two partridges. These were wild creatures that could only utilise their primitive brains of fight, flight
and freeze. Now they peck on our door when it's time for dinner. Trust has allowed their primitive brains
to transcend, and we can sit together in the garden. Once we tame our mind, we can do some useful work,
being of benefit to others and transcending squabbles.

Once we recognise the fact that defilements (attitude) can be recognised and identified in our own minds,
then they can be transcended and laid to rest. In doing this, we can identify with the feelings of others.

Evil is an illusion in the mind. Healing takes place in the mind. Whether recognition of this can heal our
physical situation will depend on the weight of individual and collective karma: in karmic law, no action
or re-action goes unnoticed by our own mind. This law of cause and effect applies to both good and
harmful actions. This is the cloud that surrounds us, held together by the feeling of “me” (ego).
Through practical practice we can learn to work with a mere ego, a mere I.



Tony

[Grizz Griswold]

Thanks Tony for starting this thread, it has led to some great discussion.

The word evil has some strong connotations attached to it and connects to the word sin.
A word when used in most religions usually require punishment.

When speaking spirituality, words can easily mix, or said a better way
replaced with another, interchangeable. i think a better replacement for evil/sin might be Mistake.

Mistake is word that doesn't add the burden of evil to it.

When mistake is used instead it becomes something that can be corrected.
Love is then allowed to enter in.

Once Love enters in, all are seen as the same self/ all that is / our true selves /God.
With Love those who make mistakes are seen as those asking for help because they
are unconscious, they sleep.

Love gives freely even to those that sleep realizing it only gives to itself.

Blessings.....barry

[Tony]

Hello Barry,
The word “sin”is just a cheap magician's trick, to lay a guilt trip on others,
and therefore creating anxiety. We have merely become lazy, by being obsessed
with our material status and wealth, and not bothering to investigate this imagined “I”.

When we are self serving we lack love.
When we condemn others we lack empathy.

I suppose sin is just a lack of love and empathy, for which we suffer.
As you say 'love freely given' which is unconditional love, is an expression of unconditional happiness.


Tony

[Dorjezigzag]

The problems with the mind is that it always sees what it wants to see, twist things to fit its perception.

I question the accuracy of this statement


Bud - recognising our awakened nature = Good
dha - purifying defilements in the mind = Evil

yes bud in Sanskrit means awakened, enlightened, from budh to awake, know

but there is no mention of recognizing in the word

but dha does not mean purify

dha means √धा dhā holding / dhāraṇa
√धा dhā maintaining (giving) / poṣaṇa

There are many words in sanskrit that mean purifying such as pavitra but dha is not one of them.

Language is very ambiguous and open to varying interpretations but we should not loose the source in our interpretations

http://sanskritdictionary.com/?q=dh%C4%81

[Tony]

Language is to do with the wish to communicate. Dharma is about a good heart.

[Agape]

The problems with the mind is that it always see what it wants to see, twist things to fit its perception.

I question the accuracy of this statement


Bud - recognising our awakened nature = Good
dha - purifying defilements in the mind = Evil

yes bud in Sanskrit means awakened, enlightened, from budh to awake, know

but there is no mention of recognizing in the word

but dha does not mean purify

dha means √धा dhā holding / dhāraṇa
√धा dhā maintaining (giving) / poṣaṇa

There are many words in sanskrit that mean purifying such as pavitra but dha is not one of them.

Language is very ambiguous and open to varying interpretations but we should not loose the source in our interpretations

http://sanskritdictionary.com/?q=dh%C4%81


Did you study Sanskrit Dorjezigzag ? I did .. it's fairly ancient and complicated language ( as you know as well ) with multileveled structure ,
reminds me of old Hebrew in that respect .

Each letter , group of letters, vowels and consonants represent 'root syllables' , 'bija mantras' and are interpreted by traditional sanskrit pundits in manifold ways .
That's a beauty of language .. words are 'simple' , they are but sounds after all ..

there's definite number of words/sounds ..and indefinite number of interpretations .

In strict scholarly sense 'buddhi' means 'intellect' , the grasping faculty of mind in sanskrit to this day , so you are also correct , dha - stands for dharana , 'holding' ,

bod- means to awaken , to realise , to make a point , to mature .

Buddha also means 'elder' , 'old person' or 'wise person' in both Hindi and Sanskrit, in both ordinary and extraordinary sense .


The reference Tony made is fairly known in sautrantika school of thought though , I've heard it in Tibetan where Buddha = Sangye , the root 'sang' means 'to purify' and 'yam' means 'defilement' or even 'death' .
Old Tibetan language and script were heavily influenced and shaped by sanskrit translations, scholars , not always translated literally .

Here, I suspect the epitaph 'Sangye' is closer to another common epitaph for those who reached enlightenment and 'won over Maras' and that is 'Jina' , 'The Victorious One' .

Buddha Shakyamuni , like wise 'Jina Mahavira' ( the founder of Jainism ) and many other mundane and supra-mundane heroes are called 'Jinas' ( not to mixed with 'jinns' even though there is probably still older linguistic root underlying emergence of both words ) ,
where 'Jay' means victory and 'jiv-' means 'Life' , '-nah' is the nature of change , mortality and so also defilements and one who won over death ..is called 'Jina' .


The beauty of Sanskrit is that its roots can be traced through evolution of most main Indo-European languages, including Celtic, Germanic , Slav , and other groups .

Its pre-Iranian roots are still preserved in old Persian and some of its surviving epics and it's also common observation that the meaning of many of those roots was 'flipped' when Vedic culture and script were being established on Indian subcontinent .


If there comes another involved person here , he would offer you number of different interpretations of one ( any ) sanskrit term and digging deep , he/she would be able to support themselves with scriptural reference .



Now ... why not try to decipher English term 'buddy' for change , starting with 'bud' .



;)

[Dorjezigzag]

Language is to do with the wish to communicate. Dharma is about a good heart.

So if we wish to communicate effectively we have to respect the origins and established meanings of words. If I say cat when I mean dog, the person I am communicating will understandably not understand me.

You could argue that it would help by having a good heart to follow the Dharma, but many may disagree.

Etymology
The Classical Sanskrit noun dharma is a derivation from the root dhṛ, which has a meaning of "to hold, maintain, keep",[note 3] and takes a meaning of "what is established or firm", and hence "law". It is derived from an older Vedic Sanskrit n-stem dharman-, with a literal meaning of "bearer, supporter", in a religious sense conceived as an aspect of Rta.[14]

In the Rigveda, the word appears as an n-stem, dhárman-, with a range of meanings encompassing "something established or firm" (in the literal sense of prods or poles). Figuratively, it means "sustainer" and "supporter" (of deities). It is semantically similar to the Greek ethos ("fixed decree, statute, law").[15] In Classical Sanskrit, the noun becomes thematic: dharma-.

The word dharma derives from Proto-Indo-European root *dʰer- ("to hold"),[16] which in Sanskrit is reflected as class-1 root √dhṛ. Etymologically it is related to Avestan √dar- ("to hold"), Latin frēnum ("rein, horse tack"), Lithuanian derė́ti ("to be suited, fit"), Lithuanian dermė (agreement),[17] darna ("harmony") and Old Church Slavonic drъžati ("to hold, possess"). Classical Sanskrit word dharmas would formally match with Latin o-stem firmus *Proto-Indo-European *dʰer-mo-s "holding", were it not for its historical development from earlier Rigvedic n-stem.

In Classical Sanskrit, and in the Vedic Sanskrit of the Atharvaveda, the stem is thematic: dhárma- (Devanāgarī: धर्म). In Pāli, it is rendered dhamma. In some contemporary Indian languages and dialects it alternately occurs as dharm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma

[Agape]

http://www.thebuddhism.net/2013/05/29/supreme-qualities-of-the-buddha/

Supreme Qualities of the Buddha


:hand:

P.S. One thing Dharma is not about ..are arguments. 'Ahimsa Paramo Dharmo' . The highest law/religion/dharma is non-violence .

Dharma means 'law' in both secular and religious sense .

[Dorjezigzag]

If there comes another involved person here , he would offer you number of different interpretations of one ( any ) Sanskrit term and digging deep , he/she would be able to support themselves with scriptural reference .

Actually when analyzing the Sanskrit you came to the exact conclusion as I did as would anyone who aims for accuracy. Some words have greater ambiguity, this one does not

The problem comes in when as you said


The reference Tony made is fairly known in sautrantika school of thought though , I've heard it in Tibetan where Buddha = Sangye , the root 'sang' means 'to purify' and 'yam' means 'defilement' or even 'death' .
Old Tibetan language and script were heavily influenced and shaped by sanskrit translations, scholars , not always translated literally .

This is exactly what I have been trying to communicate to Tony for years, so many teachings have been lost and distorted in translation, especially when they are translated within a male only monastic community, purified of any female input.

Although of course many accuse the Buddha himself of misogyny, Nuns have more rules to follow than monks. The Vinaya-pitaka lists about 250 rules for monks and 348 rules for nuns.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhisthistory/a/buddhistwomen.htm

If Tony had said Sangye his statement may have been more accurate but he said Buddha, a word of Sanskrit not Tibetan origin

[Agape]

There are about 14 sounds and 8 composite syllables on which the whole structure of Sanskrit language and grammar is said to be based .

The sounds ( frequencies ) were played by Shiva with his damaru drum , at the beginning of Universe .. according to Shiva Purana ,
and later overheard and recorded by seers , the 7 Rishis .

Sanskrit grammar is said to be mysteriously based on those 8 syllables used by Rishis to establish laws and structure of language they built - the 'purified language ' = sans-krita .

Syllable 'dhrk' is one of those 8 so also it stands at the root of dhr' =dha=dharani , holding, -ma . The 'mother of laws' = dharma.

http://books.google.cz/books?id=zJujN5H7TwIC&pg=PA577&lpg=PA577&dq=dhrk+sanskrit&source=bl&ots=-CGaUp6MvG&sig=P70OFV5RLTPbefHX1IKG2jZdpWs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d4mPU7qFKO-M4gTRv4HoCg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=dhrk%20sanskrit&f=false


Of course, historical, linguistic perspective and how these roots were transliterated and fixed from old Avestan looks more complicated .


I'm familiar with Tonys interpretation that comes as we've already agreed from Tibetan-Sanskrit linguistic conjugation , I don't remember the name of the sutra where it is found in original sanskrit or pali but I'm certain it's based on one of those old pundits explanations .. here again, if you're familiar with their style of thinking, truly any word can be interpreted in manifold ways because this is the nature of their understanding .. anything in that language can be 'deciphered' and linked to anything else, in circumferential manner ..

[Milneman]

http://www.wildmind.org/images/manjushri.jpg

[Shezbeth]

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?

[Milneman]

Provided it does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

[Agape]

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?

It's interesting .. and I don't think there's any shortcut from 'agendas and authoritarianism ' ( as seen by modern men , a symbol of evil ) to society of old that after all, evolved for thousands ( and thousands ) of years before it made it to now ,

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' .

The point where from you see it now .. evolved .. and may be totally different from where its beginnings were .

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 .

So taking your opinion to its 'extreme' , is impossible as well ... though I'm probably the first and sole proponent of such peaceful human paradise , I came to the conclusion , life long observation , that it's impossible without evolution ,

process that depends on individuals as well as evolution of their social instincts, higher emotions, availability of education , among else ..

[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]

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]

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 ...



:angel:

[Shezbeth]

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]

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]=¤



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 ...



:angel:


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]

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]

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]

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 ...


:sleep:

[Agape]

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 ..


:o

[Agape]

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 :sleep:

[markoid]

reply removed... wrong thread!!

[AutumnW]

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

[Tony]

Thought is Samsara and Nirvana
Thought is ignorance and emptiness.

When we, as empty essence, are snared by thought,
we ignore our true nature
and so create the illusory appearances of samsara.

When we, as empty essence, recognise thought,
we recognise our true nature (nirvana)
and so are liberated from the illusory appearances of samsara.

We oscillate between samsara and nirvana,
and fail to recognise
the stability of essence.

Thought is ignorance and Dharmakaya.
Like the words on this page,
emptiness and appearance cannot be separated.

Good, eh?! ;)



Tony

[Agape]

BQ4yd2W50No

In many people 'too much thinking' is an excuse for never doing the right thing,
never doing anything bigger in fact .
In focused mind 'too much thinking' does not happen . When mind is unfocused , it automatically gives birth to thousand fears and imaginations .

There's a glory of thought , like there's a feat of a dead and glow of morning Sun,
however , one does not automatically lead to another .

[Tony]

Transform Your Mind, Change the Brain.

Our mental environment can change,
by taming the mind.
The brain changes – neuroplasticity.
We can enhance compassion.
All down to meditation.

7tRdDqXgsJ0

Presented by Richard J. Davidson

In this talk, Richard J. Davidson will explore recent scientific research on
the neuroscience of positive human qualities and how they can be cultivated
through contemplative practice. Distinctions among different forms of
contemplative practices will be introduced and they will be shown to have
different neural and behavioral consequences, as well as important consequences
for physical health in both long-term and novice practitioners.
New research also shows that meditation-based interventions delivered online can
produce behavioral and neural changes. Collectively, this body of research
indicates that we can cultivate adaptive neural changes and strengthen positive
human qualities through systematic mental practice.

[Tony]

Home  »  Research Blog   »   Meditation and Neuroplasticity: Five key articles
Meditation and Neuroplasticity: Five key articles

By Peter Malinowski | March 4, 2014
http://meditation-research.org.uk/2014/03/meditation-and-neuroplasticity-five-key-articles/

Meditation not only changes our mind but also our brain – this is what more and more neuroscientific research suggests.
Neuroplasticity – the change of brain structures as a result of experience – is considered to be one of the most important
discoveries of neuroscience. Over the last 10 years evidence has been growing that not only the acquisition of navigational
knowledge by London Taxi drivers (see video) or learning a new motor task like juggling (see article), but also meditation
practice can lead to significant changes to brain structures. Here I respond to a recent request and list five key articles on
that topic.

Article 1: Meditation experience is associated with increased cortical thickness
To my knowledge this is the first study showing differences in brain structure between meditators and non-meditators.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) revealed that experienced meditators had a thicker cortex than non-meditators.
This was particularly true for brain areas associated with attention, interoception and sensory processing.
Lazar, S. W., Kerr, C. E., Wasserman, R. H., Gray, J. R., Greve, D. N., Treadway, M. T., … & Fischl, B. (2005).
Meditation experience is associated with increased cortical thickness. Neuroreport, 16(17), 1893-1897. [pdf]
doi: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000186598.66243.19
 
Article 2: Long-term meditation is associated with increased gray matter density in the brain stem
This study compared long-term meditators with age-matched controls with Magnetic Resonance Imaging and found structural
differences in regions of the brainstem that are known to be concerned with mechanisms of cardiorespiratory control.
Vestergaard-Poulsen, P., van Beek, M., Skewes, J., Bjarkam, C. R., Stubberup, M., Bertelsen, J., & Roepstorff, A. (2009).
Long-term meditation is associated with increased gray matter density in the brain stem. Neuroreport, 20(2), 170-174.    [pdf]
doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e328320012a
 
Article 3: The underlying anatomical correlates of long-term meditation: larger hippocampal and frontal volumes of gray matter
Another study that compared long-term meditators with matched control participants. The main findings were that meditators
had larger gray matter volumes than non-meditators in brain areas that are associated with emotional regulation and response
control (the right orbito-frontal cortex and the right hippocampus).
Luders, E., Toga, A. W., Lepore, N., & Gaser, C. (2009). The underlying anatomical correlates of long-term meditation:
larger hippocampal and frontal volumes of gray matter. Neuroimage, 45(3), 672-678. [pdf]
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.061
 
While the studies listed so far merely compared existing differences between meditators and non-meditators and thus do not
provide information of causality (a possible explanation would be that these people were drawn to meditation because their
brains are different – rather than the difference being a result of meditation), below are two studies demonstrating actual
impact of meditation practice by means of longitudinal designs (comparing pre- and post-meditation brain scans).
 
Article 4: Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray matter density

Compared to a control group participation in an 8-week Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) programme resulted in
increased grey matter in the left hippocampus, a brain area strongly involved in learning and memory.
 
Hölzel, B. K., Carmody, J., Vangel, M., Congleton, C., Yerramsetti, S. M., Gard, T., & Lazar, S. W. (2011).
Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray matter density. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 191(1), 36-43. [pdf]
doi: 10.1016/j.pscychresns.2010.08.006
 
Article 5: Mechanisms of white matter changes induced by meditation
Here we have a very exciting study showing the impact of meditation practice on the connections between brain areas using
Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI). After only four weeks of meditation changes in white matter – which is strongly involved in
interconnecting brain areas [see myelin] – were present in those participants who meditated but not in the control participants
who engaged in relaxation exercises. Interestingly, these changes involved the anterior cingulate cortex, a part of the brain that
contributes to self-regulation, an important aspect when people start engaging with meditation practice.


(read more about this article in a previous post )
Tang, Y. Y., Lu, Q., Fan, M., Yang, Y., & Posner, M. I. (2012). Mechanisms of white matter changes induced by meditation.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(26), 10570-10574. [pdf]

[Tony]

Information consumes attention.

HTfYv3IEOqM

Psychologist Daniel Goleman shot to fame with his groundbreaking bestseller Emotional Intelligence.
The premise of the book, now widely accepted, is that raw intelligence alone is not a sure predictor
of success in life. A greater role is played by 'softer' skills such as self-control, self-motivation,
empathy and good interpersonal relationships.

Now Goleman comes to Intelligence Squared for an exclusive talk on the themes of his latest book,
Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence. Attention, he will argue, is an underrated asset for high
achievers in any field. Incorporating findings from neuroscience, Goleman will show why we need
three kinds of focus: inner, for self-awareness; other, for the empathy that builds effective
relationships; and outer, for understanding the larger systems in which organisations operate.
Those who excel rely on Smart Practices such as mindfulness meditation, focused preparation
and positive emotions that help improve habits, add new skills, and sustain excellence.

[loungelizard]

It's fascinating to come back to this thread after a while, and se how it has evolved. I'd like to thank all the contributors to this discussion - it makes for a thought provoking and dynamic read.

Tony wrote:
"Thought is ignorance". Interesting. Thought is ignorance. Ignore - ance. We are ignoring our essence by being distracted by thoughts.

Perhaps it would clarify to look at that seemingly outlandish statement from an understanding of the different levels of Buddhist sutras.

The Buddha's teachings can be seen as a framework known as the Three Turnings of the Wheel Of Dharma. In the first turning, the teachings deal with the causes of our suffering and the methods to attain freedom. They are concerned with positive actions leading to happiness and negative ones to suffering, and so there is a self. At this level, thoughts would be considered to be either neutral, beneficial or harmful, and it is at this level that most of us function in our everyday lives.

In the second turning of the wheel, the focus is on reversing the attachments that have arisen as a result of studying the first turning. An identification with an "I", a clinging to good and bad etc. Phenomena is analysed and found to be lacking in inherent existence - it is empty of any true reality. This includes thought.

In the third turning, the theories of non-existence are then analysed in order to be free of all conceptual fabrications. Pure awareness is beyond existence and non-existence - it is beyond any ideas that we may hold about what reality is. That is reality's absolute nature.

It is at this level that thoughts are seen as ignorance.


Shezbeth wrote:
"…the 'teaching' you are promoting is abject nonsense." You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but there are a few million Buddhists out there who would disagree :rolleyes:



Thought is ignorance and emptiness.

When we, as empty essence, are snared by thought,
we ignore our true nature
and so create the illusory appearances of samsara.

When we, as empty essence, recognise thought,
we recognise our true nature (nirvana)
and so are liberated from the illusory appearances of samsara.

We oscillate between samsara and nirvana,
and fail to recognise
the stability of essence.

Thought is ignorance and Dharmakaya.
Like the words on this page,
emptiness and appearance cannot be separated.


(I thought this was definitely worth repeating!)

[Tony]

How we poison ourselves

If we think life is a battle to be won, we will find the world a lonely place. In suspecting everyone and
everything we practice the evil art of self preservation. We become nasty, bitey creatures, getting angry
at every opportunity. We do the d-evil's work!

The demon of destruction - Yama mara.
Yama mara; instead of destroying what needs to be destroyed – ego games - evil obliterates everything.
Trungpa Rinpoche wrote, “We begin to get inspired in the wrong way, and uproot the whole tree... and that
is the karmic quality of destruction gone wild, unnecessarily”.

We create situations for others to oppose us, so that we can strike back – it's a set up. In so doing,
we perpetuate poisonous activity. The internet has allowed this to escalate: a hurtful word here,
a nasty tone there, an old biased resentment brought up again and again, with the purpose of dividing.

However, not only do we poison others in this way, but we become poisonous, poisoning ourselves.
The negative energies amassed to hurt others create poisonous energies within us, causing that
long-lasting churning feeling in our gut and mind, long after the argument is over.

If there is are powers in this world who feed off destruction, which is the expression of evil,
all they want is for evil to be self-perpetuated by us doing their work for them.
Stupidly, they do not realise that this poisonous activity is poisoning them as well.

We become demons by feeding poison to others. This doesn't bode well for our next incarnation does it?!
Even if we don't believe in reincarnation, this still has a detrimental psychological effect on us now.

Whichever we choose, it is still a banal, sleeping state, when we could awaken to our true nature of unconditional compassion.

In this banal state, how can we expect to reach higher states of consciousness, allowing peace and wisdom to arise?


Tony

[Grizz Griswold]

Whichever we choose, it is still a banal, sleeping state, when we could awaken to our true nature of unconditional compassion.

In this banal state, how can we expect to reach higher states of consciousness, allowing peace and wisdom to arise?


Tony

Hi Tony, I believe the world has become very weary of the way things are,
the drama, competition, conflict and call to war. These unconscious states
are not only on a global scale but are played out on a one on one basis as well.


Love , compassion and a joining with all that is has never been tried on a
large scale (only small groups) maybe it's time we try something different.
Give love a try.

Blessings to all....barry

PS. this may be a good place to start....http://globalmeditation.chopra.com/

[Delight]

I feel inspired recently by the work I have been doing with Joe Dispenza. the body is the feedback mechanism for the I AM consciousness. We IMO wanted the body experience for the very reason we have it....to experience consciousness and being a point of personal hu-manifestation.

More and more I am sure this was all for a grand purpose we requested. Personal experience leads to reality that transcends programing......


I am interested in what makes human beings tick, but I got run over by a truck in a triathlon back in 1986 and broke six bones in my back and the diagnosis was that I would probably never walk again. I had multiple compression fractures of my thoracic spine and I had bone fragments on my spinal cord.

So the recommendation at the time was radical surgery from four different surgeons in southern California. Anyway, I decided not to have the surgery and my belief at the time and still is, is that the power that made the body, heals the body.

I decided that if I could take some time and begin to connect or develop a relationship with that power, that intelligence, if I could begin to give it some instructions, give it some orders, to give it a template and then create an idea or a picture what I wanted and then surrender this condition to this mind and ask it to begin to do the healing for me that maybe it might work. So I decided to not let any thought go by unchecked, a thought that would be connected to the possibility of never walking again or any other fears or anxieties that people typically have.

Dr. Dispenza was determined to cure himself.

So every day, two hours a day, twice a day, I would reconstruct my spine. From start to finish, and if my mind wandered to an extraneous thought or I began to worry or get afraid, I would stop and start all over again. From the very beginning. What I didn’t know at the time was that I was developing a good amount of focus and a good amount of concentration. I wanted it to be the exact thing I wanted in the end.

Because I didn’t have a surgery they told me that it would take six months to a year to walk again and I’d have to wear this big body cast. I was back on my feet in nine and a half weeks and back to training in around 11 weeks and back in my office in 12 weeks so.

At what point did you realize that you were seeing results? And that must have given you more interest in continuing on with that program?

I was in extreme pain, a terrible pain and I had some neurological changes in my body and so when my body started to respond in ways and pain levels were going back, and feeling was coming back, and movement was coming back I was pretty excited That was a feedback I needed because the brain learns by feedback. In other words, when we see some observable change, we can correlate what we did inside to produce that effect. http://suprememastertv.com/ss/?wr_id=82

Our awareness and attention (the energizing of thought) causes material effect from "the field" of possibilities. This makes sense to me. Also the apparatus being physical, there is a lawful way of addressing the workings. Lining the "brain" and the "heart" up in coherence as a learned "meditative" practice makes sense. Information as coherent waves is felt as peace makes sense to me. The body expresses the consciousness and actually "the body" is all that we experience.

My teacher Joe Dispenza has made strides to place "spiritual" teachings in "common" language AND show through instrumentation and correlations that common people do the uncommon by learning what it "feels like" to be coming from the field of possibility and Not the effect of a single "body". From the context of knowing oneself as consciousness (not in abstract), one then may be aware outside the "thinking" context.

The odd thing about being "me" is that I needed an intellectual knowledge base from "thinking" to then trust that there is no need for this much. In Joe Dispenza's model, the brain is an interface that makes the neurochemistry that we use to matter what we "think". The problem has been that we have become addicted to the patterns we set up through life experience.

The practical effect of learning to let "thinking" become less important is visible in life evidence as "newness and magic".

It is a whole new way to approach USING the truth. The words of Buddhism may point to the science of Buddha but it is like such a foreign language that I cannot grasp it. One of the difficulties I have trying to understand the writings as in this thread is that the poetry sounds very fine but very distant from applicability. I personally want to learn for myself in a 'scientific' manner to be the god I AM in this hologram. Who is I AM?

It is not the body or the mind or the emotions and that I AM is where we are left when we can let go of the "sense" of the rest: the repetitive thoughts, the belief in a script fro life, the body state of a moment...... Old religious edicts may actually disconnect us from our inner being as it seems only lofty monks have "the right" to claim I AM. One must feel that inner being some way to depend on I AM.

If the truth is "true" I am appreciative of descriptions of various pathways. This one I reference is making sense to me and showing results of letting go of the addiction to "figuring IT all out". This twirling in "past" is what I believe Tony is saying is Ego. It is a brain state. We know that the NOW is the moment of power to create a new future but many of us have no connection to what it "feels" like to be outside the brain twirl.

My post reflects back on the thread title. IMO we are in a time that is wonderful!! As people know that the body can change, circumstances can change, that miracles are not for the special and that each of us has been "just an addict" to thinking from a repetitive pattern and can change, IMO EVIL will not be able to maintain itself apart from aLIVE.

Fear and loathing from the idea that all that we "see" is permanent leads to a feeling of nihilsim IMO. It is believed that we must battle with what "was" and overcome others in a "given". Instead of refreshing change we have deadly sameness we actually create. That is IMO Evil as opposite of Live. We have the means now to use our "brain" experience to alter "reality" experience.

KNOWING we are free to experience within ourselves the avenue of PRACTICAL liberation in the here and now will make choice for actions that look evil disappear IMO. People like Joe Dispenza are bridges for this time. He gives a 21st century scientific context (one where consciousness is the base) for "knowledge" becoming "know how".

[Tony]

How did evil start?

Everything has a cause.

We may be able to answer the question “What is evil”
if we start with what meditation is.
Meditation is simply correcting a mistaken view.
Instead of always looking outwards,
we turn our attention inwards,
to the source of pure awareness,
and rest there.

Looking inward is the source, and the solution.

How did evil start?

Evil could be said to have started
when pure awareness became unaware of itself.
It became attracted to some thing.
In this attraction, our essential nature was forgotten, and an 'I' was created, an ego.
So instead of unconditional awareness - non duality -
we created a duality. “I like this.” This duality then desires more.

Following this, there is a judgement of like and dislike: we lost unconditional love
for conditional love. We love what we want, and do not love what we do not want.
So instead of pure perception, we merely have perception, which draws on its memory bank
for a preconceived judgement, and a habitual pattern is set up.

Gradually, light turned to dark, and our reaction become more and more insane.
Evil is losing our sanity, empathy, and unconditional love.

How did evil start?
The answer is seen clearly in the stillness and clarity of meditation,
when we get distracted, from stillness and clarity.

In any action we could ask ourselves, “What is my intended purpose?”



Tony

[Shezbeth]

Shezbeth wrote:
"…the 'teaching' you are promoting is abject nonsense." You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but there are a few million Buddhists out there who would disagree :rolleyes:

Those you reference are certainly entitled to their opinion and to express their opinion of what is self-evident in the same manner that I am and do. I have only expressed what is self-evident to me in observance that it is diverse to what is expressed herein and in many ways incongruent; especially to the continued insinuation of 'we'.

I find the term 'one' to be far more acceptable, as it allows for inclusion or disclusion as the individual finds applicable.

Though, since my overall perception of the situation has recently been posted most effectively and artfully by Spiritwind as follows, I can conclusively state that I have finished 'contributing' to this thread, and will contest no more. Thank you Tony, et al. for the enjoyable exercise.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?72088-Outdated-Beliefs

[Tony]

Karma = Hypnosis
Hypnosis = Karma

We self hypnotise: we are hypnotised by an image of ourselves, which creates a programme to which we adhere.

A hypnotic state is believing something to be real when it's not. It permits a modification of behaviour which is based
on the illusory state of self interest. A self which has been conjured up, which we believe to be real and solid.

There are two aspects to this: one is our own hypnotic state and the other is that of those around us.
Both of these maintain the illusion. The result is karma, which is an imprint in the mind, which modifies our behaviour
(a programme). We react because of these karmic imprints, and so we live within a loop, a vicious cycle of existence.
In Sanskrit, this is called Samsara.

In the video, the illusionist Derren Brown explains how it is easier to hypnotise those who are quick to react,
defending and re-enacting their constant self-programming. It is more difficult to hypnotise those who can step back
– and meditation is about stepping back! At 1.15 talks about those who are more susceptible to being hypnotised…
...jXcCEv72oQ8

If we are obsessed in any way, we are trapped in an inner prison.

There are those who exploit this in order to to distract us from experiencing reality: they may be corporations or your
family and neighbours, and it may be done consciously or unconsciously. We can note how quickly some become angry
when we talk outside their programming, to the extent that they may even crucify or poison those whom they perceive
as not playing “the right game” (Christ, Socrates, Milarepa...).


Obsessed: preoccupy or fill the mind of (someone) continually and to a troubling extent
be constantly talking or worrying about something.
ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense ‘haunt, possess’, referring to an evil spirit).


Hypnosis: the induction of a state of consciousness in which a person apparently loses the power of voluntary action
and is highly responsive to suggestion or direction. Its use in therapy, typically to recover suppressed memories or
to allow modification of behaviour. A hypnotic state.
ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from Greek hupnos ‘sleep’.


We put ourselves into a banal sleepy state, where evil can thrive because of our lack of compassion for others.

[Tony]

The real Dharma is breaking out of the programme completely.

“The closer you look, the less you see.”
This is the illusionists mantra.
Looking is not seeing.

When we see, we recognise.
Looking is merely distraction.

We talk about the mind control of MKUltra and the like
as if it is over there. Really? It's right here, now!
It is maintained by our past karma: when we re-act,
it is due to past experiences.
Reacting is merely maintaining our future programming.

Break out of the shell by realising you are inside.

vJG698U2Mvo
IGQmdoK_ZfY
UtKt8YF7dgQ

[Tony]

The Invisible Gorilla

Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons met at Harvard University in 1997, where they began to collaborate on research.
In 2004 they received the Ig Nobel Prize in Psychology, awarded for "achievements that first make people laugh,
and then make them think," for the experiment that inspired The Invisible Gorilla.
They continue to work together on new research projects and writing.






overview
Reading this book will make you less sure of yourself-and that's a good thing.
In The Invisible Gorilla, we use a wide assortment of stories and counterintuitive
scientific findings to reveal an important truth:

Our minds don't work the way we think they do.
We think we see ourselves and the world as they really are, but we're actually missing a whole lot.

We combine the work of other researchers with our own findings on attention, perception, memory,
and reasoning to reveal how faulty intuitions often get us into trouble. In the process, we explain:

Why a company would spend billions to launch a product that its own analysts know will fail
How a police officer could run right past a brutal assault without seeing it
Why award-winning movies are full of editing mistakes
What criminals have in common with chess masters
Why measles and other childhood diseases are making a comeback
Why money managers could learn a lot from weather forecasters

Again and again, we think we experience and understand the world as it is, but our thoughts are beset by everyday illusions.
We write traffic laws and build criminal cases on the assumption that people will notice when something unusual happens
right in front of them. We're sure we know where we were on 9/11, falsely believing that vivid memories are seared into
our mind with perfect fidelity. And as a society, we spend billions on devices to train our brains because we're continually
tempted by the lure of quick fixes and effortless self-improvement.

The Invisible Gorilla reveals the numerous ways that our intuitions can deceive us, but it's more than a catalog of human failings.
In the book, we also explain why people succumb to these everyday illusions and what we can do to inoculate ourselves against
their effects. In short, we try to give you a sort of "x-ray vision" into your own minds, with the ultimate goal of helping you
notice the invisible gorillas in your own life.




(We can be made to believe anything as our perception can be misinformed!)

[Tony]

The “Invisible Gorilla” experiment shows how, when we are obsessed,
we can miss what is actually in front of us – the obvious.
This is the 'outer Gorilla'.

When we are distracted and obsessed, we miss seeing the reality within.
This is the 'inner Gorilla'.

We are the 'Invisible Gorilla'.

Our karma is our programming: we believe in the 'incredible', in a fabricated reality.

Breaking out of this programming is not replacing it with another!
That is what the illusionist wants – to keep the illusion going.
In the final analysis, “I am” the illusionist.

As it says in ancient text:

To everything one sees, one says,
“Not this, not this. Thou art that”.
To that, one also says
“Not this, not this”.

As the illusionist poisons the mind drop by drop,
so luminous awareness can transform this poison into wisdom.
Therein lies the fault in the illusionist's logic.



Tony

[joeecho]

The “Invisible Gorilla” experiment shows how, when we are obsessed,
we can miss what is actually in front of us – the obvious.
This is the 'outer Gorilla'.

When we are distracted and obsessed, we miss seeing the reality within.
This is the 'inner Gorilla'.

We are the 'Invisible Gorilla'.

Our karma is our programming: we believe in the 'incredible', in a fabricated reality.

Breaking out of this programming is not replacing it with another!
That is what the illusionist wants – to keep the illusion going.
In the final analysis, “I am” the illusionist.

As it says in ancient text:

To everything one sees, one says,
“Not this, not this. Thou art that”.
To that, one also says
“Not this, not this”.

As the illusionist poisons the mind drop by drop,
so luminous awareness can transform this poison into wisdom.
Therein lies the fault in the illusionist's logic.



Tony.

Obsession (and all it's variants) is the scourge of humanity.

You could purge yourself of all obsessions but that only opens the door to obsessing again....if not to obsess over making sure your not obsessing any more! ;)

.....and hence the banality of evil.

Are you better then that?

Good.

Now just don't go obsessing about it. :rofl:

[Tony]

"Personal Dignity"

The danger of conforming to subtle bullying,
is the pack mentality.

Bullying is power, evil is power!
"Evil starts at 15 volts".

There is a danger in anonymity allowing us
to be as evil as we like. The internet clearly reveals this.

This happens day in and day out on social media and forums.
"Passive tolerance of evil through inaction or indifference."

Doing good or evil is a personal decision.
At 19.19 mins Zimbardo mentions …"THE BANALITY OF EVIL"
He also mentions …"THE BANALITY OF HEROISM'
We have both potentials.

Start discussing and stop trying to take lumps out of one another.

Philip Zimbardo is a wonderful man.
"Personal Dignity".





NyDDyT1lDhA
OsFEV35tWsg

[Tony]

The Danger of Conformity

This is a delicate subject, as we all think that we're on the side of good...think again!

We merely have both potentials of good or evil.
When we get caught up in group dynamics, something happens to us!

Becoming involved in any group, we can lose our way. We relinquish our brains,
our empathy and our humanity and become a type, a caricature, for good or evil
(just to reiterate: 'evil' is a lack of active empathy, which can be under the guise of 'good').

Heroes do not conform. Heroism is quite ordinary.
Heroes do not stand around being one of the group, feeling safe.
Heroes are confident and clear about what they have to do in that moment.
We can all be heroes.

'Not conforming' doesn't mean acting oddly. Neither does it mean projecting a heroic image
while claiming to be someone who does not conform.

It is necessary to have a constant awareness of both our heroic potential and our demonic
potential (lack of empathy). There may be something we do not want to do,
but are compelled because the needs of another outweigh our own fears.

THE REAL DANGER

Not only is there a danger of losing our morality and empathy to group mentality,
but there is also a danger in this very knowledge being used to bring about situations
where we lose our morality and empathy to group mentality.

The danger inherent in groups is being caught up in a group fantasy.

Knowledge can be used as a blueprint for good or for evil - consciously or unconsciously.


Tony

[loungelizard]

Thanks for putting Zimbardo on this thread , Tony. I agree with you - he is a truly amazing man, and anyone who hasn't come across him already would find much of value in his (extensive) writings and research.

He is a "situationalist" - he has shown that situations exert more power over human actions than does personality or societal/cultural conditions. If there's anyone here who hasn't see the Stanford Prison experiment, it is essential viewing for every human being http://www.prisonexp.org/psychology/

Since that experiment, he has been examining how ordinary people can be capable of monstrous acts - the Banality of Evil - and how situations can poison even the kindest person. He calls this coming together of causes "The Perfect Storm".

But Zimbardo has gone on to devote his life to promoting what he terms civic virtue and heroism through, among other things, the Heroic Imagination Project http://heroicimagination.org/welcome/

One of his definitions of heroism is "taking action on the behalf of others for a moral cause, aware of possible risks and costs and without expectation of gain. My idea is sowing the earth with millions of everyday heroes trained to act wisely and well when the opportunity presents itself," he says. "The fact is that most heroes are ordinary people. It’s the heroic act that is extraordinary." The Banality of Heroism!

Very, very briefly, his Heroic Imagination Project tackles the challenge of encouraging people to take on the training to become a hero through a programme that includes issues such as:


1 having an awareness that there are people and forces who seduce good people to doing bad things - through the diffusion of responsibility, the power of the group, obedience to authority, bystander inaction etc.
2 discovering the many examples of perfectly ordinary people just like us who have performed heroic acts. It's a matter of starting with small steps to effect a change.
3 understanding that heroes are socio-centric - they make others central to their view and have a habit of caring, of focusing on the needs of others. Starting on that training may entail just challenging oneself to make one person feel special each day.
4 developing the confidence to stand out. Heroes are deviants. In most situations, groups uphold the status quo and do nothing and so heroes have to learn the confidence to pull away from the group and be different.


Zimbardo is my hero :cheer2: :cheer2: :cheer2:

[Tony]

The Banality of Self

To become enlightened, we must first identify
the obstacle to enlightenment.
This obstacle is the created image of ourself.
Clever me :o

This image can be very subtle, so subtle that we
can achieve an enlightened ego, and become a master of
conventional reality – the great illusion.
This is not enlightenment, but merely a puffed-up idea.
The claim “I am” clearly reveals this.
That is the banality of self. The source of evil.
Because of this, we feel we have to defend ourself
and attack others.

When practising, one of the problems is being caught up
in “idiot meditation”. Being trapped in a vacant state.
In this vacant state, there is no insight, no knowing,
no emotion, no virtue, no clarity. Just a vacant state of perception -
but this is not pure perception, which is pure essence.
The trap is “I experience”, “I rest in stillness”, “I am aware”,
“I am”…these are still at the conventional level of reality.
This “I” mentality gives rise to sentimentality.

Holding on to an mental image of ourselves is the reason
we repeat everything, with the same attitude.

Through proper instruction, we can break through this barrier,
to pure awareness – essence – higher self.
Then, there is just stillness, just awareness, just is-ness.



Tony

[panopticon]

But Zimbardo has gone on to devote his life to promoting what he terms civic virtue and heroism through, among other things, the Heroic Imagination Project http://heroicimagination.org/welcome/

One of his definitions of heroism is "taking action on the behalf of others for a moral cause, aware of possible risks and costs and without expectation of gain. My idea is sowing the earth with millions of everyday heroes trained to act wisely and well when the opportunity presents itself," he says. "The fact is that most heroes are ordinary people. It’s the heroic act that is extraordinary." The Banality of Heroism!

Very, very briefly, his Heroic Imagination Project tackles the challenge of encouraging people to take on the training to become a hero through a programme that includes issues such as:


1 having an awareness that there are people and forces who seduce good people to doing bad things - through the diffusion of responsibility, the power of the group, obedience to authority, bystander inaction etc.
2 discovering the many examples of perfectly ordinary people just like us who have performed heroic acts. It's a matter of starting with small steps to effect a change.
3 understanding that heroes are socio-centric - they make others central to their view and have a habit of caring, of focusing on the needs of others. Starting on that training may entail just challenging oneself to make one person feel special each day.
4 developing the confidence to stand out. Heroes are deviants. In most situations, groups uphold the status quo and do nothing and so heroes have to learn the confidence to pull away from the group and be different.


Zimbardo is my hero :cheer2: :cheer2: :cheer2:

Good post LL,

People often think heroic action is a heat of the moment thing like running into a burning building or pulling someone from a flooded river. Often it is over quite a long time and is very difficult on the person involved.

I'd be classified as one of them there hero types.
I defied the norm (ie look after yourself and just get on with it) within an industry and saved lives by my actions.

The owners and administrators of the corporation I worked for tried to tempt me to cease & desist when I started asking questions as to why they were not abiding by the industries code of practice and when that didn't work they undertook to make my life "difficult".
Eventually I succeeded in getting a regulatory body to investigate and they placed "work orders" on almost the entire industry regarding the matter.
The Minister (State Government) concerned then "made it all disappear" (ie there was no public admissions) however did enforce the decision made by the regulatory body (ie the industry changed to address the problems I'd described).
Good-o, well done. Time to celebrate a hard fought campaign.

I was then ostracised and made an outcast (by both management and my fellow workers).

Took about a decade to come to terms with what happened but I've always been comfortable with my decision.
I'm really happy to say that it never actually occurred to me to "look the other way".
Maybe I'm just a bit dim. :)

Now I mostly live away from people, surrounded by nature.
Life is a lot simpler.

-- Pan

[loungelizard]

Tony, I just wanted to thank you for this thread - for me, it's one of the most valuable currently on the forum :cool: I've revisited it a few times to really reflect on the content, and it's led me to some sources I haven't investigated before (I'm currently reading The Invisible Gorilla - brilliant!).

Pan: thank you for your story of heroism. You did a good thing there. In fact, below I've listed Zimbardo's 11 step programme that he has devised for "promoting civil virtue" (in in opposition to the 10-steps toward evil that he writes about in relation to the Milgram effect on our lives).
Actions such as the one you describe would be encouraged by steps 3,4,5,7 and 10!



Encouraging admission of one’s mistakes, accepting errors in judgments, being willing to say that you were wrong. Openly doing so reduces the need to justify the mistakes, to continue the wrong or immoral action. It undercuts the motivation to reduce dissonance by asserting or believing in the public commitment when it was a bad decision.
Encouraging “Mindfulness” (Langer, 1989) in which people are reminded in a variety of ways not to live their lives on automatic pilot, but to take a moment to reflect on the immediate situation, to think before acting, to not go mindlessly into situations where angels and sensible people fear to tread.
Promoting a sense of personal responsibility and accountability for all of one’s actions, making people aware that conditions of diffused responsibility merely disguise their own individual role in the outcomes of their actions.
Discouraging even the smallest transgressions, cheating, gossiping, lying, teasing and bullying. They provide the first steps toward escalating downwards to ever worsening behaviors.
Learning to distinguish between Just Authority, to whom respect and even obedience may be appropriate, and Unjust Authority (as in the Milgram study), to whom disrespect and disobedience are necessary to oppose and change that tyrant.
Supporting critical thinking from the earliest times in a child’s life and maintaining it throughout life. Asking for evidence to support assertions, demanding that ideologies be sufficiently elaborated to separate rhetoric from reality-based conclusions, to independently determine whether specific means ever justify vague and harmful ends.
Rewarding social modeling of moral behavior, elevating for societal recognition those who do the right thing, with rewards for “whistle blowers,” such as the U.S. army reservist, Joe Darby, who exposed the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and those who expose wrong doing in government and corporation, and by the Mafia.
Respecting human diversity, appreciating human variability and the differences among people as a fundamental way to reduce our in-group biases that lead to derogating others, prejudice and the evils of discrimination.
Changing social conditions that make people feel anonymous, instead supporting conditions that make people feel special, so that they have a sense of personal value and self worth.
Becoming aware of when conformity to the group norm is counter-productive and should not be followed, when independence should take precedence and be adopted regardless of social rejection by that group.
Never allowing one’s self to sacrifice personal freedoms for the promise of security, it is always a bad deal because the sacrifices are real and immediate and the security is a distant illusion. This is as true in marital arrangements as it is in being a good citizen in a nation where the leader promises to make everyone safer against a current threat by giving up some of their personal freedoms so that the leader can have more power. That bad bargain usually translates to more power Over Them, as well as over the enemy. It is the first step in creating fascist leaders even in democratic societies, as Erich Fromm (1941) reminded us about Hitler, but is as true today in many nations.

http://www.prisonexp.org/pdf/powerevil.pdf

Zimbardo is someone who is really trying to have a positive effect on people and society in a practical way...:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: