How to improve society's sense of justice?

[Arhattobe]

@winterknight nor did I. 

[FoxFoxFox]

Quote

He wrote that at the height of his activism. The movement that happens spontaneously when the mind is in silent peace is the movement that is correct.

That is interesting. Needs longer and more consistent abidance as the Self on my part to fully realize. 

Scratch that. Thinking is not apart from God. There is great potential for misunderstanding here. I doubt if Ramana meant there were no thoughts. What you say only makes sense if one presupposes that ego, mind, thought etc. are separate from God which cannot be the case. Then the issue is whether the thoughts obstruct the truth, which they can't. 

I reject the notion that thoughts -even self-referential ones- are antithetical to self-realization , but i don't think that's what you are implying. 

Edited March 21, 2019 by FoxFoxFox

[Sbilko]

Please see that "justice" is just another name for "vengeance". Thus, as long as the human being is vengeful, they will be unjust too. Because everyone is a hero in their own story, they are just and such; but in their enemies' opinion, it is the opposite: they are the unjust archenemy. 

[Nahm]

@FoxFoxFox A contemplation might help....if you had the opportunity to kill Hitler in his ‘prime’, thus saving millions of innocent lives, would you do it? What about before he killed the first victim? What about a year before that? What about when he was 25? 20? 10? 1? What about his pregnant mother? What about both parents, before his conception? 

[FoxFoxFox]

@Nahm

I might just be ignorant about the topic, but I don't think Adolf Hitler actually killed anyone by his own hands (he might have during the war when he served in the Austrian military, and ofc there are the allegations that he forced his wife into suicide). Anyhow, There is no doubt that his ideology brought about the death and suffering of millions of people, and that is the issue. Like Winterknight said in another thread. The problem is in the psyche. So no. I wouldn't kill Adolf Hitler. I would try to help him get over his demons, if I could. So the answer to all of those questions is no. I wouldn't kill him even if i had the chance during the height of his power and destruction. I don't think death is a suitable penalty even for a murderer who kills personally. 

[winterknight]

10 hours ago, FoxFoxFox said:

That is interesting. Needs longer and more consistent abidance as the Self on my part to fully realize. 

Scratch that. Thinking is not apart from God. There is great potential for misunderstanding here. I doubt if Ramana meant there were no thoughts. What you say only makes sense if one presupposes that ego, mind, thought etc. are separate from God which cannot be the case. Then the issue is whether the thoughts obstruct the truth, which they can't. 

I reject the notion that thoughts -even self-referential ones- are antithetical to self-realization , but i don't think that's what you are implying. 

Thoughts are not antithetical to self-realization, but self-realization is not the same as a mind in perfect calmness. The latter requires the former, however. The latter suggests thoughts occur but very rarely if at all.

By thoughts I mean any mental arising related to the idea of "what should I do and how should I do it."

[JohnnyBravo]

@FoxFoxFox

I know. Silly.

Youre not gonna be able to satisfy any answer with intellectual thinking.

Only a metaphysical answer will suffice.

He must have had past karma to work through. The 20 years of jail. The lessons he learned. People he met. Relationships he formed. Things he learned about himself. A 20 year jail term or a 20 year education stream?

Hey, id never want to go to jail so i cant talk like this.

Who knows.

But there had to be some significance to it.

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight 

Quote

Thoughts are not antithetical to self-realization, but self-realization is not the same as a mind in perfect calmness. The latter requires the former, however. The latter suggests thoughts occur but very rarely if at all.

This is wisdom.

Quote

By thoughts I mean any mental arising related to the idea of "what should I do and how should I do it."

So self-referential thoughts, correct? Would you agree that the issue is actually whether one allows the self-referential thoughts to limit one's true nature? Because then there is freedom for the thoughts to flow freely and be useful without causing ignorance. 

[winterknight]

39 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight 

So self-referential thoughts, correct? Would you agree that the issue is actually whether one allows the self-referential thoughts to limit one's true nature? Because then there is freedom for the thoughts to flow freely and be useful without causing ignorance. 

Well, there's a few issues in phrasing it this way.

First, I've never loved self-referential as the designating term. It's both too broad and not broad enough. It's not thinking the word "I" that is problematic, it is the underlying interlaced structure of egoic thought. One could think "I" without it playing much into that structure, or one could think something seemingly not related to the I at all that nevertheless is deeply influenced by that underlying mental structure.

How to tell which is which? Well, one can probably only tell after the fact -- by the way in which the mind has been drawn out and it causes un-peace.

Second, once one has seen one's true nature firmly, there is really no question of 'allowing' or 'not allowing.' Those very ways of looking at things play into ignorance. So one must "not allow" that way of thinking to spring up . It's more like this happens automatically as a result of knowledge.

Third, thoughts can't really cause ignorance. It's not really about whether they cause ignorance or not but simply what the state of the mind is -- more or less peaceful, that is. 

Finally, at the extreme end, it may well be the case (I don't have a firm position on this, but i lean this way) that literally all thought somehow or the other plays into the  egoic structure. So that in the end, thought itself disappears, or very close to it, because not motivated by desire.

Edited March 21, 2019 by winterknight

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight

Quote

First, I've never loved self-referential as the designating term. It's both too broad and not broad enough. It's not thinking the word "I" that is problematic, it is the underlying interlaced structure of egoic thought. One could think "I" without it playing much into that structure, or one could think something seemingly not related to the I at all that nevertheless is deeply influenced by that underlying mental structure.

Agreed.

Quote

How to tell which is which? Well, one can probably only tell after the fact -- by the way in which the mind has been drawn out and it causes un-peace.

Agreed. 

Quote

Second, once one has seen one's true nature firmly, there is really no question of 'allowing' or 'not allowing.' Those very ways of looking at things play into ignorance. So one must "not allow" that way of thinking to spring up . It's more like this happens automatically as a result of knowledge.

In my understanding, there is no discrepancy in assuming ownership of choice as long as it is not limited to the body/ego. In fact, in my own direct experience, the universe seems to respond almost immediately to my intentions. This is not to say that by simply wishing cake to manifest itself i'll be immediately fed cake (although cake in a few hours after intending is not outside the realm of possibility  ) but rather that the entirety of existence feels as if it is an extension of me. Funnily enough, i believe total surrender and total subjectivity are the two sides of the same coin. 

 

Quote

Third, thoughts can't really cause ignorance. It's not really about whether they cause ignorance or not but simply what the state of the mind is -- more or less peaceful, that is. 

Agreed and this is i feel where self-inquiry falls a little short. Not that it is so intentionally, but there is huge potential here for aspirants to vilify thoughts and as such be more concerned with attaining a quiet mind, instead of realizing.

Quote

Finally, at the extreme end, it may well be the case (I don't have a firm position on this, but i lean this way) that literally all thought somehow or the other plays into the  egoic structure. So that in the end, thought itself disappears, or very close to it, because not motivated by desire.

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't see thoughts feeding the egoic structure as long as you are aware of the danger.

[winterknight]

21 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight

In my understanding, there is no discrepancy in assuming ownership of choice as long as it is not limited to the body/ego. In fact, in my own direct experience, the universe seems to respond almost immediately to my intentions. This is not to say that by simply wishing cake to manifest itself i'll be immediately fed cake (although cake in a few hours after intending is not outside the realm of possibility  ) but rather that the entirety of existence feels as if it is an extension of me. Funnily enough, i believe total surrender and total subjectivity are the two sides of the same coin. 

Well, all I can say is just be careful that this is not self-deception. When something really "bad" comes your way will you feel that you've intended it?

Quote

Agreed and this is i feel where self-inquiry falls a little short. Not that it is so intentionally, but there is huge potential here for aspirants to vilify thoughts and as such be more concerned with attaining a quiet mind, instead of realizing.

Self-inquiry is not about just attaining a quiet mind, though. It's literally called inquiry, after all. It's trying to see clearly what is. 

Quote

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't see thoughts feeding the egoic structure as long as you are aware of the danger.

It's not really a "danger." The truth of Self is unaffected either way, but it's simply that the mind may be more or less turbulent, more or less blissful. 

As Ramana Maharshi says, "The bliss of peace is too good to be disturbed. A man fast asleep hates to be awakened and ordered to mind his business. The bliss of sleep is too enthralling to be sacrificed to the work born of thoughts. The thought-free state is one’s primal state and full of bliss. Is it not miserable to leave such a state for the thought-ridden and unhappy one?"

Edited March 21, 2019 by winterknight

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight

Quote

Well, all I can say is just be careful that this is not self-deception. When something really "bad" comes your way will you feel that you've intended it?

What does it matter if something bad happens to this body specifically? You are familiar with what Ramana told his followers who were weeping as he was about to die. "Why are you so much attached to this body? Where can I go?"

In contrast how would you feel when something bad happens comes your way? 

The answer to both our questions is the same thing, no?

Quote

Self-inquiry is not about just attaining a quiet mind, though. It's literally called inquiry, after all. It's trying to see clearly what is. 

Agreed. To rephrase what you said before, a quiet mind is a more of a side effect rather than an end goal.

Quote

As Ramana Maharshi says, "The bliss of peace is too good to be disturbed. A man fast asleep hates to be awakened and ordered to mind his business. The bliss of sleep is too enthralling to be sacrificed to the work born of thoughts. The thought-free state is one’s primal state and full of bliss. Is it not miserable to leave such a state for the thought-ridden and unhappy one?"

The bliss of peace is beautiful. It is phenomenal. It is indescribably exalted. It is unshakable, even unprocurable. I cannot convey it any better than saying: "there has never been ignorance to begin with." God has never forgotten itself. That whole notion of God's leela is false. 

but no. It is not miserable to leave such a state. Because it cannot be left to begin with. You know this. You are no longer even able to fall back into ignorance. What then is the reason to reject the world, when the world is not different from God?

[winterknight]

12 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight

What does it matter if something bad happens to this body specifically? You are familiar with what Ramana told his followers who were weeping as he was about to die. "Why are you so much attached to this body? Where can I go?"

Well, great then. It's just that in my experience & in at least Hindu scriptures, enlightenment is associated with total loss of the sense of doership. There is possibly a surreptitious "I" that is staying in the picture and associating itself with the one whose wishes the universe fulfills, etc.

But that's just my opinion. You have to follow your own internal compass, obviously.

Quote

but no. It is not miserable to leave such a state. Because it cannot be left to begin with. You know this. You are no longer even able to fall back into ignorance. What then is the reason to reject the world, when the world is not different from God?

It's not about rejecting the world, but about rejecting the mind. And I'm suggesting that it happens automatically, over time... while it is true that the Self can never be left, the surface of the mind can be more or less blissful.

When there is no "I" there is an automatic dropping of the mind and its thoughts over time, as these are basically motivated by desire, and desire is based on the self-conception of oneself as doer & enjoyer.

Edited March 21, 2019 by winterknight

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight

May I humbly ask you to watch this video when you have time? 

I think this video nicely demonstrates how doership, the mind and the world are not obstacles to enlightenment or bliss or what have you, in the context of hinduism.

From my direct experience, i cannot phrase it better than saying that the mind, the world, and doing are not separate from God.

 

[winterknight]

24 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight

May I humbly ask you to watch this video when you have time? 

I think this video nicely demonstrates how doership, the mind and the world are not obstacles to enlightenment or bliss or what have you, in the context of hinduism.

From my direct experience, i cannot phrase it better than saying that the mind, the world, and doing are not separate from God.

Activity is not the measure of a sense of doership, though. Whether one is sitting in one place or traveling around the world, one can either feel oneself to be a doer, or not. And this is of course not a choice. Either the fruits of inquiry have wiped away that sense or not.

And as I showed earlier with Gandhi, one can be very active in the world, yet be so without thinking. To the mind turned firmly inward, thought and world disappear. But this does not mean that, from the standpoint of outsiders, that enlightened one sits and does nothing.

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight

Let's clear something up first about your direct experience, which of the following do you mean? 

A. The world disappears in the sense that what is "perceived" itself changes "quality". 

B. The thoughts about the world, which is really the self, quiet down and so the world is revealed to be the "Self" (if we choose to call it by that name)? 

[winterknight]

5 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight

Let's clear something up first about your direct experience, which of the following do you mean? 

A. The world disappears in the sense that what is "perceived" itself changes "quality". 

B. The thoughts about the world, which is really the self, quiet down and so the world is revealed to be the "Self" (if we choose to call it by that name)? 

Neither. When you’re not paying attention to something, what happens? It might as well not exist. Similarly, when the mind pays attention only to knowledge, nothing can be said to exist.

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight Very well, then operating with that framework, the experience could be described as paying attention without losing sight of the truth.

Whereas before one would say, "this body is me, it is I, let me do the work with it", it is now "I am that I am. What ever i intend happens". The mind may or may not be involve. The important thing is that the Self is never lost sight, despite the functioning, intending, etc etc.

When I say intention, do not mistake it with intention as made by the mind. The process is wholly mysterious to the mind. The mind may sometimes take advantage of this power for its own purposes, but mostly it is silent. The important thing to stress is that whether the mind is active or quiet, the Self is not hidden.