Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 14:38:14 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 12:47:05 GMT
Exerpt from the interview:
Adyashanti: "...I haven’t experienced violence as a spontaneous manifestation. To me, violence is inherently self-centered. The first Buddhist precept is “Do not kill.” But then there’s the ethical conundrum: What would you do if you had the opportunity to kill Hitler before the Holocaust? If you kill him, you’re karmically responsible for murder. If you don’t kill him, you’re karmically responsible for the deaths of 6 million people. So even to say, “I will not kill,” could be seen as violent, if 6 million people are going to die because you couldn’t pull the trigger. This is an extreme example, but I think that in small, less dramatic ways, these kinds of situations do arise in life. So I can’t say that there is absolutely never a moment when violence is called for..." How would one even know for sure if someone will be a mass-murderer in the future? In fact it's unknowable and therefore it isn't a proper philosophical question one can honestly ask, IMO. And in the "conclusion", the bolded text, Adyashanti even says that violence sometimes might be called for. I think the war-mongerers, who bomb the middle-east, will love that quote as a nice justification for what they do and "why" they do it. A proper and valid philosophical question would be: How comes that someone like Hitler was even able, capable and willing to start and exercise the holocaust? AHIMSA does not just mean "don't kill". It means: don't harm. That's a much stronger point than saying, "do not kill". But where does "harming" begin? That's the difficult (philosophical) point. For what killing is, democratic societies have a constitution and lawbooks, in which laws say what it is and isn't. What harming is, who is harmed by whom, and for what reasons harm might be justified, needs constantly be talked and discussed about. It is, IMO, an ongoing conversation in a society. But nevertheless, Adyashanti has a lot of interesting things to say. That's for sure. Edit: Another question would be: How can it be prevented that someone will become like and as influencial as Hitler (Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, etc.)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 16:12:57 GMT
Here I find Adyashanti's questions and comment very helpfull and important to contemplate on.
"Safransky: What’s the single most important piece of advice you would give to someone who wants to awaken?
Adyashanti: Get in touch with what you really want. What does awakening mean for you? Do you want it because it sounds good? Then you’ve borrowed someone else’s idea of it. What is it that’s intrinsic to you? What’s been important to you your whole life? If you touch upon that, you are in touch with a force that no teacher or teaching could ever give you. You are quite on your own in finding it. No one can tell you what that is. Once you feel it, once you’re clear on it, everything else will unfold from there. If you need a teacher, you’ll find one. If you need a teaching, you’ll bump into it, probably in the most unexpected way."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 17:22:31 GMT
Exerpt from the interview:
Adyashanti: "...I haven’t experienced violence as a spontaneous manifestation. To me, violence is inherently self-centered. The first Buddhist precept is “Do not kill.” But then there’s the ethical conundrum: What would you do if you had the opportunity to kill Hitler before the Holocaust? If you kill him, you’re karmically responsible for murder. If you don’t kill him, you’re karmically responsible for the deaths of 6 million people. So even to say, “I will not kill,” could be seen as violent, if 6 million people are going to die because you couldn’t pull the trigger. This is an extreme example, but I think that in small, less dramatic ways, these kinds of situations do arise in life. So I can’t say that there is absolutely never a moment when violence is called for..." How would one even know for sure if someone will be a mass-murderer in the future? In fact it's unknowable and therefore it isn't a proper philosophical question one can honestly ask, IMO. And in the "conclusion", the bolded text, Adyashanti even says that violence sometimes might be called for. I think the war-mongerers, who bomb the middle-east, will love that quote as a nice justification for what they do and "why" they do it. A proper and valid philosophical question would be: How comes that someone like Hitler was even able, capable and willing to start and exercise the holocaust? AHIMSA does not just mean "don't kill". It means: don't harm. That's a much stronger point than saying, "do not kill". But where does "harming" begin? That's the difficult (philosophical) point. For what killing is, democratic societies have a constitution and lawbooks, in which laws say what it is and isn't. What harming is, who is harmed by whom, and for what reasons harm might be justified, needs constantly be talked and discussed about. It is, IMO, an ongoing conversation in a society. But nevertheless, Adyashanti has a lot of interesting things to say. That's for sure. Edit: Another question would be: How can it be prevented that someone will become like and as influencial as Hitler (Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, etc.)? Interesting reflections on ahimsa and its evolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AhimsaWhile serving in the military I and a few of my friends went to the holocaust museum in, Berlin. You follow an concrete and brick path throughout the museum to see the artifacts and photographs which were quite chilling. The path leads to a steel door exit in a back corner of the museum, and once outside you see buildings. One is a tall incinerator, the other is a gas chamber. As our group went through the door of the gas chamber, the guide in the group slammed it shut behind us. The door was closed for about two minutes. It was the most uneasy feeling I've ever had in my life. My heart was pounding in my chest. Anxiety. Fear.... My friends described experiences which were similar. 6,000,000 jews exterminated. If I'd had the chance to kill him? Bye Adolf...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 22:51:25 GMT
Exerpt from the interview:
Adyashanti: "...I haven’t experienced violence as a spontaneous manifestation. To me, violence is inherently self-centered. The first Buddhist precept is “Do not kill.” But then there’s the ethical conundrum: What would you do if you had the opportunity to kill Hitler before the Holocaust? If you kill him, you’re karmically responsible for murder. If you don’t kill him, you’re karmically responsible for the deaths of 6 million people. So even to say, “I will not kill,” could be seen as violent, if 6 million people are going to die because you couldn’t pull the trigger. This is an extreme example, but I think that in small, less dramatic ways, these kinds of situations do arise in life. So I can’t say that there is absolutely never a moment when violence is called for..." How would one even know for sure if someone will be a mass-murderer in the future? In fact it's unknowable and therefore it isn't a proper philosophical question one can honestly ask, IMO. And in the "conclusion", the bolded text, Adyashanti even says that violence sometimes might be called for. I think the war-mongerers, who bomb the middle-east, will love that quote as a nice justification for what they do and "why" they do it. A proper and valid philosophical question would be: How comes that someone like Hitler was even able, capable and willing to start and exercise the holocaust? AHIMSA does not just mean "don't kill". It means: don't harm. That's a much stronger point than saying, "do not kill". But where does "harming" begin? That's the difficult (philosophical) point. For what killing is, democratic societies have a constitution and lawbooks, in which laws say what it is and isn't. What harming is, who is harmed by whom, and for what reasons harm might be justified, needs constantly be talked and discussed about. It is, IMO, an ongoing conversation in a society. But nevertheless, Adyashanti has a lot of interesting things to say. That's for sure. Edit: Another question would be: How can it be prevented that someone will become like and as influencial as Hitler (Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, etc.)? Interesting reflections on ahimsa and its evolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AhimsaWhile serving in the military I and a few of my friends went to the holocaust museum in, Berlin. You follow an concrete and brick path throughout the museum to see the artifacts and photographs which were quite chilling. The path leads to a steel door exit in a back corner of the museum, and once outside you see buildings. One is a tall incinerator, the other is a gas chamber. As our group went through the door of the gas chamber, the guide in the group slammed it shut behind us. The door was closed for about two minutes. It was the most uneasy feeling I've ever had in my life. My heart was pounding in my chest. Anxiety. Fear.... My friends described experiences which were similar. 6,000,000 jews exterminated. If I'd had the chance to kill him? Bye Adolf... For some reason I was just going through some of the beginning topics and posts on this site. Ran across figs topic about Mother Theresa and Hitler. As a result, I'm going to have to sit with what I wrote above about Hitler. Thanks Figs. Great opening post, and your follow up posts on the topic were, too. Geez,art. Shutty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 8:50:15 GMT
Exerpt from the interview:
Adyashanti: "...I haven’t experienced violence as a spontaneous manifestation. To me, violence is inherently self-centered. The first Buddhist precept is “Do not kill.” But then there’s the ethical conundrum: What would you do if you had the opportunity to kill Hitler before the Holocaust? If you kill him, you’re karmically responsible for murder. If you don’t kill him, you’re karmically responsible for the deaths of 6 million people. So even to say, “I will not kill,” could be seen as violent, if 6 million people are going to die because you couldn’t pull the trigger. This is an extreme example, but I think that in small, less dramatic ways, these kinds of situations do arise in life. So I can’t say that there is absolutely never a moment when violence is called for..." How would one even know for sure if someone will be a mass-murderer in the future? In fact it's unknowable and therefore it isn't a proper philosophical question one can honestly ask, IMO. And in the "conclusion", the bolded text, Adyashanti even says that violence sometimes might be called for. I think the war-mongerers, who bomb the middle-east, will love that quote as a nice justification for what they do and "why" they do it. A proper and valid philosophical question would be: How comes that someone like Hitler was even able, capable and willing to start and exercise the holocaust? AHIMSA does not just mean "don't kill". It means: don't harm. That's a much stronger point than saying, "do not kill". But where does "harming" begin? That's the difficult (philosophical) point. For what killing is, democratic societies have a constitution and lawbooks, in which laws say what it is and isn't. What harming is, who is harmed by whom, and for what reasons harm might be justified, needs constantly be talked and discussed about. It is, IMO, an ongoing conversation in a society. But nevertheless, Adyashanti has a lot of interesting things to say. That's for sure. Edit: Another question would be: How can it be prevented that someone will become like and as influencial as Hitler (Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, etc.)? Interesting reflections on ahimsa and its evolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AhimsaWhile serving in the military I and a few of my friends went to the holocaust museum in, Berlin. You follow an concrete and brick path throughout the museum to see the artifacts and photographs which were quite chilling. The path leads to a steel door exit in a back corner of the museum, and once outside you see buildings. One is a tall incinerator, the other is a gas chamber. As our group went through the door of the gas chamber, the guide in the group slammed it shut behind us. The door was closed for about two minutes. It was the most uneasy feeling I've ever had in my life. My heart was pounding in my chest. Anxiety. Fear.... My friends described experiences which were similar. 6,000,000 jews exterminated. If I'd had the chance to kill him? Bye Adolf...Don't get me wrong. Of course, if one could know what will happen in the future, if it is possible to know who will do what kind of evil, it is indeed indicated to make a choice. What I was trying to point out here is: We can not know that. And when someone is already in power most of the time it's too late to do something about it. Like the attempt to kill Hitler by german military guys unfortunately failed. So yes, I totally agree on the bolded text, OF COURSE!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 9:44:50 GMT
Interesting reflections on ahimsa and its evolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AhimsaWhile serving in the military I and a few of my friends went to the holocaust museum in, Berlin. You follow an concrete and brick path throughout the museum to see the artifacts and photographs which were quite chilling. The path leads to a steel door exit in a back corner of the museum, and once outside you see buildings. One is a tall incinerator, the other is a gas chamber. As our group went through the door of the gas chamber, the guide in the group slammed it shut behind us. The door was closed for about two minutes. It was the most uneasy feeling I've ever had in my life. My heart was pounding in my chest. Anxiety. Fear.... My friends described experiences which were similar. 6,000,000 jews exterminated. If I'd had the chance to kill him? Bye Adolf... For some reason I was just going through some of the beginning topics and posts on this site. Ran across figs topic about Mother Theresa and Hitler. As a result, I'm going to have to sit with what I wrote above about Hitler. Thanks Figs. Great opening post, and your follow up posts on the topic were, too. Geez,art. Shutty. Figgles said in that thread:"From a vantage point of simply seeing that all that arises in the phenomenal world, is equally an expression of God, Mother Theresa is indeed, equal to Hitler. That particular seeing is devoid of personal judgement.....all is being rendered down into "God expresses as the phenomenal world." Thereby, that focus, where all is rendered equal, contains none of the judgements that render one expression better or worse, more moral, less moral, preferred, not preferred.
Absent judgement, all actions, all actors, can be seen as inherently innocent, equally of God, all arising of the same ground of being.
When the actions of a murderer and the actions of a saint are not being judged on their goodness vs. badness, or on any other basis, but rather are simply seen as 'happenings....Universal unfoldings,' there is nothing in play to create any sort of heirarchy or good vs. bad, wanted vs. not wanted, etc, that would thereby render them 'not equal' as manifestations of God Godding, Universe unfolding.
I’ve been told previously when making this point, that I am denying judgement, denying the objective 'badness' and 'goodness,' of each individual. Not so. Is one who compares two distinct waves arising in the surf, to declare that they both equally arise from the same ocean, in denial of the surface differences of the waves?
Of course not. In the moment where it is seen that all waves, regardless of whether they are big/small/choppy/flat, are of the same fundamental Source, those characteristics are not being denied, but rather, are simply not at the forefront of the focus. "
I'm just wondering WHY would anybody want to make a statement that is devoid of any kind of judgement by comparing a well known nun with a disgusting mass-murderer, calling them both "manifestations of God Godding" and "Universe unfolding". To me it's like saying that both of them have organs that are made out of cells. Yes sure, but what's the point? Even if both of them are "seen that all waves...are of the same fundamental Source", what's the point in saying it? What is it good for? Who benefits from that kind of perspective? To me, even if it is true, it's something one better does not talk about. Like when your beloved friend, who is insecure about her body and her looks, asks you if you think she looks fat in that dress, you say no. But then suggest she may choose a different dress because you like another dress better on her. You get my point? Anyway, I just don't think that Hitler and what he did was "God Godding". "Universe unfolding" maybe. But "God Godding" no way! Not in my definition of what God means and stands for. Edit: I appreaciate, honor and value a lot of what Figgles expresses here and also in the other forum (ST-forum). But this one isn't one of those expressions, sorry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 11:11:10 GMT
For some reason I was just going through some of the beginning topics and posts on this site. Ran across figs topic about Mother Theresa and Hitler. As a result, I'm going to have to sit with what I wrote above about Hitler. Thanks Figs. Great opening post, and your follow up posts on the topic were, too. Geez,art. Shutty. Figgles said in that thread:"From a vantage point of simply seeing that all that arises in the phenomenal world, is equally an expression of God, Mother Theresa is indeed, equal to Hitler. That particular seeing is devoid of personal judgement.....all is being rendered down into "God expresses as the phenomenal world." Thereby, that focus, where all is rendered equal, contains none of the judgements that render one expression better or worse, more moral, less moral, preferred, not preferred.
Absent judgement, all actions, all actors, can be seen as inherently innocent, equally of God, all arising of the same ground of being.
When the actions of a murderer and the actions of a saint are not being judged on their goodness vs. badness, or on any other basis, but rather are simply seen as 'happenings....Universal unfoldings,' there is nothing in play to create any sort of heirarchy or good vs. bad, wanted vs. not wanted, etc, that would thereby render them 'not equal' as manifestations of God Godding, Universe unfolding.
I’ve been told previously when making this point, that I am denying judgement, denying the objective 'badness' and 'goodness,' of each individual. Not so. Is one who compares two distinct waves arising in the surf, to declare that they both equally arise from the same ocean, in denial of the surface differences of the waves?
Of course not. In the moment where it is seen that all waves, regardless of whether they are big/small/choppy/flat, are of the same fundamental Source, those characteristics are not being denied, but rather, are simply not at the forefront of the focus. "
I'm just wondering WHY would anybody want to make a statement that is devoid of any kind of judgement by comparing a well known nun with a disgusting mass-murderer, calling them both "manifestations of God Godding" and "Universe unfolding". To me it's like saying that both of them have organs that are made out of cells. Yes sure, but what's the point? Even if both of them are "seen that all waves...are of the same fundamental Source", what's the point in saying it? What is it good for? Who benefits from that kind of perspective? To me, even if it is true, it's something one better does not talk about. Like when your beloved friend, who is insecure about her body and her looks, asks you if you think she looks fat in that dress, you say no. But then suggest she may choose a different dress because you like another dress better on her. You get my point? Anyway, I just don't think that Hitler and what he did was "God Godding". "Universe unfolding" maybe. But "God Godding" no way! Not in my definition of what God means and stands for. Edit: I appreaciate, honor and value a lot of what Figgles expresses here and also in the other forum (ST-forum). But this one isn't one of those expressions, sorry. What I was reading is an expression of equanimity. An acknowledgement that love courses through everything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 11:26:25 GMT
Exerpt from the interview:
Adyashanti: "...I haven’t experienced violence as a spontaneous manifestation. To me, violence is inherently self-centered. The first Buddhist precept is “Do not kill.” But then there’s the ethical conundrum: What would you do if you had the opportunity to kill Hitler before the Holocaust? If you kill him, you’re karmically responsible for murder. If you don’t kill him, you’re karmically responsible for the deaths of 6 million people. So even to say, “I will not kill,” could be seen as violent, if 6 million people are going to die because you couldn’t pull the trigger. This is an extreme example, but I think that in small, less dramatic ways, these kinds of situations do arise in life. So I can’t say that there is absolutely never a moment when violence is called for..." How would one even know for sure if someone will be a mass-murderer in the future? In fact it's unknowable and therefore it isn't a proper philosophical question one can honestly ask, IMO. And in the "conclusion", the bolded text, Adyashanti even says that violence sometimes might be called for. I think the war-mongerers, who bomb the middle-east, will love that quote as a nice justification for what they do and "why" they do it. A proper and valid philosophical question would be: How comes that someone like Hitler was even able, capable and willing to start and exercise the holocaust? AHIMSA does not just mean "don't kill". It means: don't harm. That's a much stronger point than saying, "do not kill". But where does "harming" begin? That's the difficult (philosophical) point. For what killing is, democratic societies have a constitution and lawbooks, in which laws say what it is and isn't. What harming is, who is harmed by whom, and for what reasons harm might be justified, needs constantly be talked and discussed about. It is, IMO, an ongoing conversation in a society. But nevertheless, Adyashanti has a lot of interesting things to say. That's for sure. Edit: Another question would be: How can it be prevented that someone will become like and as influencial as Hitler (Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot, etc.)? Interesting reflections on ahimsa and its evolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AhimsaWhile serving in the military I and a few of my friends went to the holocaust museum in, Berlin. You follow an concrete and brick path throughout the museum to see the artifacts and photographs which were quite chilling. The path leads to a steel door exit in a back corner of the museum, and once outside you see buildings. One is a tall incinerator, the other is a gas chamber. As our group went through the door of the gas chamber, the guide in the group slammed it shut behind us. The door was closed for about two minutes. It was the most uneasy feeling I've ever had in my life. My heart was pounding in my chest. Anxiety. Fear.... My friends described experiences which were similar. 6,000,000 jews exterminated. If I'd had the chance to kill him? Bye Adolf... Very interesting read!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 11:28:03 GMT
Interesting reflections on ahimsa and its evolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AhimsaWhile serving in the military I and a few of my friends went to the holocaust museum in, Berlin. You follow an concrete and brick path throughout the museum to see the artifacts and photographs which were quite chilling. The path leads to a steel door exit in a back corner of the museum, and once outside you see buildings. One is a tall incinerator, the other is a gas chamber. As our group went through the door of the gas chamber, the guide in the group slammed it shut behind us. The door was closed for about two minutes. It was the most uneasy feeling I've ever had in my life. My heart was pounding in my chest. Anxiety. Fear.... My friends described experiences which were similar. 6,000,000 jews exterminated. If I'd had the chance to kill him? Bye Adolf...Don't get me wrong. Of course, if one could know what will happen in the future, if it is possible to know who will do what kind of evil, it is indeed indicated to make a choice. What I was trying to point out here is: We can not know that. And when someone is already in power most of the time it's too late to do something about it. Like the attempt to kill Hitler by german military guys unfortunately failed. So yes, I totally agree on the bolded text, OF COURSE! I changed my mind about it. Shoot me.
|
|