Hypocrisy of having no morality

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Cepzeu said:

I think you are trying to point to the nature of something being itself. i.e. Good is Good, Bad is Bad etc. in other words saying the fundamental nature of something is itself. And that this distinction is between Absolute and Relativity. 

This is what i was gonna say as well but you beat me to it.

This is the Absolute.

 

[Scholar]

10 minutes ago, Cepzeu said:

I think you are trying to point to the nature of something being itself. i.e. Good is Good, Bad is Bad etc. in other words saying the fundamental nature of something is itself. And that this distinction is between Absolute and Relativity. 

I think you are chasing your own tail a little bit because you can make distinctions about what something is ad infinitum and from infinite perspectives. 

From an absolute perspective BLUE is BLUE and NOT-BLUE i.e. non-duality. From a relativistic perspective blue is a colour seen relative to a human's eye sight, for example. Even though you are saying BLUE is BLUE (i.e its fundamental essence) this is still relativity because to distinguish BLUE being BLUE you have to accept that it is not NOT-BLUE, which is duality. From an absolute perspective BLUE is infinity 

No, this is all logic non-sense. It is conceptual. If you saw what I talk about you would laugh at the absurdity and impossibility of existence. You wouldn't just go on and say "Oh well, you are just chasing you own tail making concetual distinctions.".

 

There is noone to accept anything, there is no "making disinction" or "chasing ones tale". This is a fantasy, a fantasy which tells itself, which stands by itself. This is precisely the magnificence which is not seen. The fantasy is literally impossible, it is completely and utterly mysterious. Get over this non-duality concept.

 

I don't even know why I am bothering with this. If you are curious you will see yourself. If not then I doubt you ever will.

 

The reaction to this shouldn't be. "Ah, you are doing this, bla bla, you are doing that, bla bla."

The reaction should be: "Holy fucking Jesus Chirst how the fuck is this even possible?! Blueness is FUCKING INSANE. IT IS INSANE!!! How can this EXIST?!"

Edited December 3, 2019 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

34 minutes ago, Scholar said:

The layer in which only anger is anger and only goodness is goodness. In that layer, goodness is not created or correlated to anything. It comes directly from the source itself, it is an expression of all possible dualites. It is Pure, and it is there. It is just as much a fascet of existence as Blueness is, and it is just as Absolute as Blueness is. It is not relative as much as Blue is not relative.

Well sure, you're talking about absolute being now. This is very different from what people normally mean when they talk about morality and something being bad or wrong.

[Cepzeu]

9 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I don't even know why I am bothering with this. If you are curious you will see yourself. If not then I doubt you ever will.

If you understand what you understand then I don't know why you are bothering with this either. Absolute is ineffable. You can't communicate it, you can only dance around it with language. Every person can only see it for themselves and no other way. I can only communicate with you through concept

Edited December 4, 2019 by Cepzeu

[Forestluv]

 

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

I can Chimp talk forever, I can Chimp Talk with different bricks, different frames. 

These are all bricks and framework of the same building. There may be some nice views on the rooftop. Yet be careful about becoming Quasimodo. 

[Scholar]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Well sure, you're talking about absolute being now. This is very different from what people normally mean when they talk about morality and something being bad or wrong.

I know, but if we keep the conversation at that level we are limiting ourselves and students to that level. The Nowness within Goodness is utterly mysterious, it can't just be waved away by saying "It's all relative".

This is to me especially important because telling people morality is relative often creates a shadow and this weird kind of relativising of everything. It is a stage green trap, and I see it time and time again. Then they wonder when relativity bites them in the ass.

 

Instead I think it would be better for focus on closer inspecting first the conceptual framework and then the underlying dimensions of existence which make up these frameworks and labels. That way there will be an emotional integration and we will go beyond the relativistic notions of the already sufrace level frameworks of morality.

 

Basically what I am trying to say is that what we are suffering of is kind of naive realistic notion of Morality. Like saying a ball is blue, when blueness is not part of any object, and when the object itself is actually a construction. Just looking at this dynamic will help us seperate the Badness/Goodness from the actions, situations and mind-states we correlate them with. Not because we create dogma around it, but because we can CLEARLY see that they are two distinct substances.

Seeing they are two distinct substances is the next step of moral evoluton. It allows us to see that Goodness exist in all Humans, literally, also in all animals. The same is true for Badness existing in all humans and animals. It makes us see that it is part of us, that it is a dimension of our Being.

 

The trick of the snake was to convince us not of there being Good and Evil. The trick of the Devil was to convince us that Good and Evil are attributes of things not Good and Evil. We do not have to get rid of Good and Evil, and in this sense of morality. We only have to clearly see it for what it is.

And that has nothing to do with relativity. This is the next step after having realized the relativity. This is in my view true inspection of what morality is, instead of constructing new frameworks or trying to somehow denie it.

 

I am saying all of this because the framework you currently use creates such needless confusions. People think they have to abandon goodness and badness, and they create shadows or delusional philosophies. Goodness and Badness will still be there, you are simply going to ignore it and call it something else. I view it to be more Loving to see Goodness and Badness rather than denying it. To embrace it even.

Obviously that kind of Goodness and Badness will have a very different effect on us than our current way of using it. But the importance is that we can Accept Reality fully without abandoning Badness and Goodness. And I think you have recognized that in the past few months. If you are going to be tortured, Badness will still exist within you. It will arise, and you do not need to deny it. You do not need to deny yourself.

 

Accepting that badness arises when you see your child being raped is so much more powerful than trying to somehow construct your mind in a way so that there does not arise badness when your child is being raped.

This is the genius of God. He gave you all the tools, you just need to know how to use them. Instead you are throwing them away. An utter shame, when the badness you are accessing is as divine a thing as Blueness is.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

Goodness is an Absolute. But this has almost nothing to do with human morality so I hesitate to even say it in this context due to the likely misunderstanding.

[Scholar]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Goodness is an Absolute. But this has almost nothing to do with human morality so I hesitate to even say it in this context due to the likely misunderstanding.

The Goodness you speak of is not the same goodness and badness we speak of. I am still referring to the duality.

 

By having pointed to Devilry, you yourself have created Devilry. Accept goodness and badness instead of denying it. See the Goodness in goodness and badness, instead of claiming it to be Devilry. Use goodness and badness instead of throwing it away. It is a wonderful tool, and it's design is beyond intelligence.

 

Relativity is an aspect of what surrounds goodness and badness, but that which it is itself is far more mysterious and wonderful than our chimp concepts that revolve around it.

 

To deny and attempting to get rid of goodness and badness is literally like trying to get rid of any other of your sense. It is like trying to get rid of your vision. It is non-sensical. Instead learn how to use it properly. Before that, you need to examine what it even is that you are using.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Scholar

[Scholar]

I think I can frame it like this too, without going to deep:

We need not to abandon judgement to find Truth, rather we:

A) Need to see judgement for what it is.

B) Cease to identify with judgement.

 

And this applies to all dualities. The seeing of any aspect of Isness will connect us to it's Divinity, as the closer we look the more it will dawn on us how utterly mysterious and impossible it is, among many other things.

The cecessation of identification let's us see it even more clearly and not only that, it will also reveal it Divinity within.

 

Judgement is impermanent either way, it will come and it will go. It is not our work to manipulate it.

 

This means to not say morality is merely relative, but to also observe goodness and badness very closely, and to cease idenitifying with it, but yet to not attempt to deny it. To accept that one will suffer and feel sorrow, to accept that one will judge and feel evilness. To not view it as impurity, but rather to see the purity within.

Let the purity of the substance purify itself, just so we can see that there has been nothing to purify all along.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Scholar

[RichardY]

Morality is adaptive. Amorality, is where moral relativism comes in. No morality, would be the Self taking full control, with all it's destructive and creative expressions. Amorality is breaking the Omerta.

Why have morality? Authority.

[crab12]

On 12/3/2019 at 8:13 AM, Leo Gura said:

The point is, right and wrong are relative notions.

There is no absolute right and wrong. But in the relative world -- relative to living a decent human life -- you should not kill people, because it will not end well for you. But again, this is all relative.

Interesting. This means prisons can't be just correctional facilities. There has to be punishment serving as deterrent.

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Goodness is an Absolute. But this has almost nothing to do with human morality so I hesitate to even say it in this context due to the likely misunderstanding.

I thought those were completely unrelated. What's the small connection between absolute goodness and everyday human morality?

[Leo Gura]

32 minutes ago, crab12 said:

Interesting. This means prisons can't be just correctional facilities. There has to be punishment serving as deterrent.

No. What I said does not require punishment, just deterrence.

A murder doesn't need to be punished, just stopped from murdering. How you stop him is up for debate.

Quote

I thought those were completely unrelated. What's the small connection between absolute goodness and everyday human morality?

Human morality is guided by a tiny connection to Absolute Goodness, which is then corrupted and hijacked by the ego-mind to further its survival.

If Absolute Goodness is the sun, human morality is like a moth flying in circles around a candle flame.

[Alex bliss]

All kinds of views are wrong views.. that what we need to realize and have no views at all.

[Alex bliss]

rightwrong.pdf