|
Post by Figgles on Dec 17, 2017 15:45:09 GMT
Nice. "We are the awareness, and not the process, and to know this, is freedom."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 12:35:01 GMT
Nice. "We are the awareness, and not the process, and to know this, is freedom." I still can hear him in the high school auditorium in Rockford, Mi. during a guided meditation back in 1992.... "Awareness in every cell of the body....." It's getting clearer. Thank you, Deepak. With love
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 18, 2017 20:10:48 GMT
I still can hear him in the high school auditorium in Rockford, Mi. during a guided meditation back in 1992....
"Awareness in every cell of the body....." It's getting clearer. Thank you, Deepak. With love Really?? That is so cool.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Dec 22, 2017 19:51:20 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...
Pretty much a no-brainer for me too, which supports Adya's point that violence may well be the 'highest' choice. The scenario involves, of course, going back in time and killing him before he comes to power. The interesting issue is, what might be the seemingly unrelated consequences of doing that? Also, some say that such powerful events can't really be changed. For example, Hitler dies and Stalin just takes his place or however it plays out. Then you would have murdered for no reason. Still, there are simpler scenarios that would prove Adya's point.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 23, 2017 16:50:02 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...
Pretty much a no-brainer for me too, which supports Adya's point that violence may well be the 'highest' choice. The scenario involves, of course, going back in time and killing him before he comes to power. The interesting issue is, what might be the seemingly unrelated consequences of doing that? Also, some say that such powerful events can't really be changed. For example, Hitler dies and Stalin just takes his place or however it plays out. Then you would have murdered for no reason. Still, there are simpler scenarios that would prove Adya's point. Yes....to slightly change the direction here, 'the path to hell is paved with good intentions' comes to mind. It's important to see that the idea I must 'help others' or 'make the world a better place,' is inherently selfish and as altruistic as it may seem, attachment to that idea, always has personal judgement at its helm. what always comes to mind for me as an example, as I've witnessed the scenario a few times, is the misguided attempt to 'help' someone who appears to you to be in need, (so that you can feel better about his plight, and in the process, experience yourself as being a good person) who takes offense at your offering, because fact is, he never saw himself as being needy and now you've insulted him and made him feel like a loser. Years back, I'd signed up with world Vision as a sponsor....It had gone on a little over a year, with correspondence going back and forth, and then I'd shared with the involved family that I was expecting a baby....shortly after, I was informed by world vision that the father of the family was refusing sponsorship... They refused to tell me the exact reason why, but my sense was that these folks felt bad taking funds from a woman expecting a baby out of wedlock...or who knows, perhaps they saw me as immoral of something and didn't want to be party to such things, but nevertheless, this experience in concert with a few others, really had me looking at the dynamic of 'helping others,' and the inherent selfishness and personal judgements involved in such an endeavor. Bottom line though, I still maintain that IF an urge to help or contribute or whatever arises, and you are clear on your highest values, the path of action is always clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 17:57:07 GMT
Pretty much a no-brainer for me too, which supports Adya's point that violence may well be the 'highest' choice. The scenario involves, of course, going back in time and killing him before he comes to power. The interesting issue is, what might be the seemingly unrelated consequences of doing that? Also, some say that such powerful events can't really be changed. For example, Hitler dies and Stalin just takes his place or however it plays out. Then you would have murdered for no reason. Still, there are simpler scenarios that would prove Adya's point. Yes....to slightly change the direction here, 'the path to hell is paved with good intentions' comes to mind. It's important to see that the idea I must 'help others' or 'make the world a better place,' is inherently selfish and as altruistic as it may seem, attachment to that idea, always has personal judgement at its helm. what always comes to mind for me as an example, as I've witnessed the scenario a few times, is the misguided attempt to 'help' someone who appears to you to be in need, (so that you can feel better about his plight, and in the process, experience yourself as being a good person) who takes offense at your offering, because fact is, he never saw himself as being needy and now you've insulted him and made him feel like a loser.Years back, I'd signed up with world Vision as a sponsor....It had gone on a little over a year, with correspondence going back and forth, and then I'd shared with the involved family that I was expecting a baby....shortly after, I was informed by world vision that the father of the family was refusing sponsorship... They refused to tell me the exact reason why, but my sense was that these folks felt bad taking funds from a woman expecting a baby out of wedlock...or who knows, perhaps they saw me as immoral of something and didn't want to be party to such things, but nevertheless, this experience in concert with a few others, really had me looking at the dynamic of 'helping others,' and the inherent selfishness and personal judgements involved in such an endeavor. Bottom line though, I still maintain that IF an urge to help or contribute or whatever arises, and you are clear on your highest values, the path of action is always clear. Does that mean that some people actually want to suffer, consciously? Why and what for would they want to suffer, other than taking it as a just punishment for what ever they have done (or not done) as being well deserved and therefore don't suffer from seemingly suffering, but from being kept away from rightfully suffering? In other words: If one would like to commit suicide that implies, by definition, that one suffers so much that life becomes unbearable and enduring to live nevertheless is then some kind of punishment. The suffering then is wanted not unwanted. (Maybe Sisyphus was such a case. That myth that might just be created to make people who hear about him shout, "No! That's not fair! What ever that guy did, it can not have been that bad!") And helping others out of that condition isn't selfish then, but is just something one naturally does? Otherwise helping others would always contain some kind of selfishness because to lift the burden for others will also lift the burden for oneself, naturally, because of the non-dual nature? What would be considered a complete selfless act (action) or doing? What must such an act imply? And what's wrong with being selfish as a helper if it actually helps others who need that help?
|
|
Andrew
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 8,340
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 23, 2017 18:55:22 GMT
Yes....to slightly change the direction here, 'the path to hell is paved with good intentions' comes to mind. It's important to see that the idea I must 'help others' or 'make the world a better place,' is inherently selfish and as altruistic as it may seem, attachment to that idea, always has personal judgement at its helm. what always comes to mind for me as an example, as I've witnessed the scenario a few times, is the misguided attempt to 'help' someone who appears to you to be in need, (so that you can feel better about his plight, and in the process, experience yourself as being a good person) who takes offense at your offering, because fact is, he never saw himself as being needy and now you've insulted him and made him feel like a loser.Years back, I'd signed up with world Vision as a sponsor....It had gone on a little over a year, with correspondence going back and forth, and then I'd shared with the involved family that I was expecting a baby....shortly after, I was informed by world vision that the father of the family was refusing sponsorship... They refused to tell me the exact reason why, but my sense was that these folks felt bad taking funds from a woman expecting a baby out of wedlock...or who knows, perhaps they saw me as immoral of something and didn't want to be party to such things, but nevertheless, this experience in concert with a few others, really had me looking at the dynamic of 'helping others,' and the inherent selfishness and personal judgements involved in such an endeavor. Bottom line though, I still maintain that IF an urge to help or contribute or whatever arises, and you are clear on your highest values, the path of action is always clear. Does that mean that some people actually want to suffer, consciously? Why and what for would they want to suffer, other than taking it as a just punishment for what ever they have done (or not done) as being well deserved and therefore don't suffer from seemingly suffering, but from being kept away from rightfully suffering? In other words: If one would like to commit suicide that implies, by definition, that one suffers so much that life becomes unbearable and enduring to live nevertheless is then some kind of punishment. The suffering then is wanted not unwanted. (Maybe Sisyphus was such a case. That myth that might just be created to make people who hear about him shout, "No! That's not fair! What ever that guy did, it can not have been that bad!") And helping others out of that condition isn't selfish then, but is just something one naturally does? Otherwise helping others would always contain some kind of selfishness because to lift the burden for others will also lift the burden for oneself, naturally, because of the non-dual nature? What would be considered a complete selfless act (action) or doing? What must such an act imply? And what's wrong with being selfish as a helper if it actually helps others who need that help? I'm not a christmas person (at least not in the way that christmas is currently celebrated), I have no interest in parlour games, presents, pulling crackers and family dinners etc, so for the next couple of days I'm going to make pots of coffee and bowls of chicken soup, and take them to local homeless people in my local town. It is entirely selfish on my part, in the sense that I can't think of anything better to do. So...I might as well do something like this. It's not something that comes naturally to me, I tend to keep myself to myself and mind my own business, but this year is different. I gotta give something just to pass the time. It might, in part, come from the fact that up until recently, I have been on a very tight budget and haven't been able to give much in general. Now, the budget is lifted and so I feel I can give something....so why not.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 23, 2017 20:14:50 GMT
Does that mean that some people actually want to suffer, consciously? Why and what for would they want to suffer, other than taking it as a just punishment for what ever they have done (or not done) as being well deserved and therefore don't suffer from seemingly suffering, but from being kept away from rightfully suffering? In other words: If one would like to commit suicide that implies, by definition, that one suffers so much that life becomes unbearable and enduring to live nevertheless is then some kind of punishment. The suffering then is wanted not unwanted. (Maybe Sisyphus was such a case. That myth that might just be created to make people who hear about him shout, "No! That's not fair! What ever that guy did, it can not have been that bad!") And helping others out of that condition isn't selfish then, but is just something one naturally does? Otherwise helping others would always contain some kind of selfishness because to lift the burden for others will also lift the burden for oneself, naturally, because of the non-dual nature? No doubt, spontaneous acts kindness/love can and do occur, but I see those more as present moment happenings, where the loving action arises in flow, vs. being the product of fixed, concrete, personal beliefs/ideas and judgements about the wrongness of the world as a whole. My point there was that it's important to see that so many who live their life in what they regard to be a 'charitable/kind/giving/' way, where Service to others is highly valued, do so out of a misguided idea about a broken world that needs fixing, and a misguided sense that their values are objectively seen and shared by all. And yes, it's also important to see that some feed their ego through the idea that they are providing 'service to others.' What is meant to be a kind act that leaves you feeling uplifted because you've done your good deed for the day, can actually leave the one on the receiving end, suddenly seeing himself in a new and dis-empowering light. I'm not against charitable acts, (I've 'rescued' animals I deemed to be in need, volunteered time for various causes, contributed to charities, yada, yada) but I see it as so important to consider just how dis-empowering it can be to be on the receiving end of charity when you yourself don't actually feel yourself to be in need. & In All of those activities I engaged in, I never lost sight that I was ultimately, engaged in them to please myself. I was the one who was gaining something of value and if it actually served the one I was engaging with, great, but it would be silly to get locked into the idea that the other 'needed' me. My main point was that it's important for one who holds a blanket intention to 'help' or to fix a perceived wrong regarding the world, to see that the desire to fix or help, is founded in his own judgements. I recall watching a show about a group of young men that were sponsored to go to the US from their own country, where they were living in poverty...grass huts, no running water, food shortages, etc. They were set up in an apartment in a US city and given jobs. In a matter of months, they all admitted to being deeply depressed, and although their bellies were always full and they did not want for money, food or comfort, they missed the social interactions they grew up with, the relaxed pace of life in general & in the end, they elected to move back to their home, complete with the poverty they had originally escaped from. It was a profound demonstration of how one man's heaven is another man's hell...and how good intentions, backfired. It's important to see that my values and judgements are unique to me and that they are not necessarily shared. There are instances where what one regards to be a charitable act is actually not a gift at all, but an infliction of my personal judgements upon another. I don't think there's ever anything wrong with an intended helpful act that actually helps...I'm just saying it's important to see ego's involvement for what it is. When one is aware of ego and non-identified with experiential content, and thus, he responds to what appears in the moment it arises, absent fixed ideas and beliefs about how life 'should' be, that's when love flows unimpeded and I'd say that's when helping hands can be said to be 'selfless.'
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 23, 2017 20:41:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 23, 2017 20:49:36 GMT
In his book, Toxic Charity: How Churches and Charities Hurt Those They Help (And How to Reverse It), Robert D. Lupton calls out the bad in most short-term missions and charities—and tells us how to fix it. Here are 20 quotes from his book:
“What Americans avoid facing is that while we are very generous in charitable giving, much of that money is either wasted or actually harms the people it is targeted to help.” (1)
“The compassion industry is almost universally accepted as a virtuous and constructive enterprise. But what is so surprising is that its outcomes are almost entirely unexamined.” (3)
“When we do for those in need what they have the capacity to do for themselves, we disempower them.” (3)
“Giving to those in need what they could be gaining from their own initiative may well be the kindest way to destroy people.” (4)
“The money spent by one campus ministry to cover the costs of their Central American mission trip to repaint an orphanage would have been sufficient to hire two local painters and two new full-time teachers and purchase new uniforms for every student in the school.” (5)
“Service projects and mission trips do not effect lasting change. Within six to eight weeks after a mission trip, most short-term mission-trippers return to the same assumptions and behaviors they had prior to the trip.” (15)
“Even the most kindhearted, rightly motivated giving—as innocent as giving Christmas toys to needy children—can exact an unintended toll on a parent’s dignity.” (33)
“There is no simple or immediate way to discern the right response without a relationship.” (48)
“…the overwhelming majority of our mission trips are to places where the needs are for development rather than emergency assistance.” (69)
“Not only does aid foment political instability and corruption, it discourages free enterprise—like the African mosquito-netting manufacturer who was put out of business by well-meaning charities that handed out millions of free nets.” (95)
“But isn’t it time we admit to ourselves that mission trips are essentially for our benefit? Would it not be more forthright to call our junkets ‘insight trips’ or ‘exchange programs’? Religious tourism would have much more integrity if we simply admitted that we’re off to explore God’s amazing work in the world.” (69)
“A hunger-free zone may be possible, but developing the dependency-free zone is the real challenge.” (101)
“To the extent the poor are enabled to participate in the system intended to serve them, their self-worth is enhanced.” (130)
“Little affirms human dignity more than honest work. One of the surest ways to destroy self-worth is subsidizing the idleness of able-bodied people. Work is a gift, a calling, a human responsibility.” (152)
“Becoming a neighbor to less-advantaged people is the most authentic expression of affirmation I know—becoming a real-life, next-door neighbor. When connected neighbors move into the struggling world of those who are poor in order to be friends (rather than profit-making gentrifiers), news possibilities begin to appear.” (153-154)
“…it is far better to enter the neighborhood as a learner than an initiator.” (161)
“Betterment does for others. Development maintains the long view and looks to enable others to do for themselves. Betterment improves conditions. Development strengthens capacity. Betterment gives a man a fish. Development teaches a man how to fish.” (167)
“Think of the transformation that would occur if mission trips were converted from make-work to development work; if soup kitchen servanthood were redirected to afford homeless men the dignity of securing their own food; if Saturday service projects shifted from pity to partnership; if government giveaways became accountable investments.” (189)
“Authentic relationships with those in need have a way of correcting the we-will-rescue-you mind-set and replacing it with mutual admiration and respect…”(190)
“The poor, no matter how destitute, have enormous untapped capacity; find it, be inspired by it, and build upon it.” (191) Lupton urges all his readers to consider taking this oath before engaging in charitable work: Oath for Compassionate Service:
-Never do for the poor what they have (or could have) the capacity to do for themselves.
-Limit one-way giving to emergency situations.
-Strive to empower the poor through employment, lending, and investing, using grants sparingly to reinforce achievements.
-Subordinate self-interests to the needs of those being served.
-Listen closely to those you seek to help, especially to what is not being said—unspoken feelings may contain essential clues to effective service.
-Above all, do no harm. (8-9
|
|