Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Kenneth, Apr 24, 2011.
Which leads us back to the topic of a spiritual person is...
A spritual person is one who is in tune with that which is greater than he/she...that is my explaination.
Offensive and defensive behavior are essentially the same, they are merely different approaches to the same response. The nature of this response is why I have apologized for maybe seeming to attack you. They both function to protect from a statement, to perhaps avoid it in some way. This is evident in that you have not approached my statement directly still.
It is as though you are intimidated by my words, something I wish to avoid. Your views are as valid as mine, in that both are utterly irrelevant and only function to convey ideas. There is no need to back down, talk freely
Agreed, we are discussing how this is attained.
Would you agree that a person doing good acts with ulterior motives is not a spiritual person? This is why for me it is invalid to say morals and ethics are part of spirituality, for many do this to benefit themselves - whether it be for a resume or to earn a ticket to heaven.
For me, to attune to what is "greater", one must first know what is less and renounce it - not identify with it. Would you agree with this?
Defense is simply that, to defend against a threat. Not to harm or hold accountable, just simply survive to see another day (or provide for the progeny, etc.). Offense is to become agressive, provocate a crisis where there was none...these are totally different mind sets, particularly in the life of one who wishes to be spiritual vice religious...
I see an injured animal and I stop my vehicle (now I'm late for work), to help, or hold while it dies. What's in it for me? Nothing, but a sense of responsibility, and a soul that does not want to be alone in its pain...what is that?
I have said they are different approaches, but why would one become offensive if there is no threat? They are simply two sides of the basic flight or fight response.
Anyway, the point is that neither are necessary, I did not mean to trigger either.
I do not like your explanation here... a responsibility. For me, a responsibility is something we do not necessarily wish to do, an obligation, or perhaps a sense of control on some level. You are also showing that this is against what you are actually trying to do in conveying you are now late for work. You are saying this is something which is costing you something, but it is costing the animal its life.
True compassion, for me, is free from these considerations, it is to assist because you are given the opportunity to assist. It is to console because you are there to console, there is no other consideration. This is simply the next task in your journey of life. If there are ramifications later, you deal with those at that time, but this is what is occurring during the present. If you should be fired for assisting in saving an animal, so be it, there are other jobs. If the animal lost its life, that is it, that animal is no more.
I am not saying it is not a compassionate act, I am asking you to consider for yourself whether it is truly compassionate or not. You have deemed it so, thus to counter I am showing why it might not be. It is a thought exercise not a judgement.
But where I come from my friend, I am taught that I am responsible, for both my neighbor and my fauna... I am my brothers' keeper.
At first it is a duty...until one looks into the eyes of the other...then compassion flows like water, and worlds of stories exchange without a sound...does that make sense?
This will come across as offensive, but for me this is like assigning children a buddy when taking them to the park so you can keep better track. Compassion should arise simply because you recognize the same struggle in the other as is present in you. It should not be necessary to see it as an instruction, an obligation. You are not obligated to care for yourself, you do it because you do not wish to suffer, compassion is simply treating others as you treat yourself - seeing no difference at all. This, for me, is the nature of Jesus saying "love your neighbor as yourself", he doesn't merely command you watch your neighbor, he states as part of his only law that you should see them as yourself. Everything that causes you to help yourself should be the same way you treat another being in need. Is the avoidance of your own suffering a responsibility?
Other than viewing it as a duty, this is truly beautiful.
A truth that Buddha tells us is that through the assisting of another, through giving ourselves completely to another, we suddenly forget those struggles we ourselves may have. The mere act alone is enough to raise our spirits if it is a pure act. We need not receive anything in return, not even a thank you, for the mere act of generosity has its own reward. And yet still this should not be our motive, for with motive it ceases to be pure.
This is Karma Yoga, the yoga of action (and reaction). We can realize the interconnectedness of all things, how we relate to those around us merely by watching for opportunities to help others. No matter how mundane or simple it seems, walking past a store and see someone carrying bags? Ask to carry some, things we would usually not even notice. We can begin to see how loving our neighbor illustrates how all humans are really one, how all creatures are one, how everything depends on each other. How beautiful things would be if this is just how things were with everyone.
But please see, I did not have to stop (according to the world). But I did according to my consciense. I am connected to all life, every life (even the sparrow in the field, worth two cents). That, is the spiritual life...
You don't know me. But I spent 35 years duty bound to save life (I guess it was bred/taught me from childhood). But I never thought of it as a duty. I just did what I loved/came natural/spiritual...does that make sense?
It is that in your story you felt the need to even bring this up. It is a fine act of compassion, but it needn't be justified - nay, it shouldn't be justified. It is only compassionate if you do not justify it, if it is done purely from the heart. I think it is, I am merely causing you to consider for yourself.
If it was not considered by you as a duty, why call it a duty? It seems perhaps this is a method to gain praise in some way, I am not sure. It is a beautiful thing in and of itself, there should be no requirement for praise or recognition.
Perhaps I am reading your words wrong since this is the internet.
It feels like you are answering non-existent whys, rather than showing something more selfish. I merely attempt to cause you to consider why there is this need. Do you not feel those reading your words will merely respect your deed without the explanation?
It is curious to me.
I think it is a good idea to ask other people what they think.
I agree with you that I am wrong, from your viewpoint.
I think when you use the word 'I', or 'we', that you are referring to yourself. Am I wrong?
I have only met a few people who think they can choose to not do their own will. Do you think you can choose to not do your own will?
The difference between the use of "I" and "we" pertains to how unique the concept may be, whether it is specific to this perspective or not. Both refer to something held as a truth by this perspective, certainly.
It depends what is meant by will, certainly there is an intent to live as naturally as possible, to react with awareness to what is presented. If by will it is meant desire, this is unnatural, this is an attempt to mold the laws of nature for selfish gains. This is a cause of suffering, for nature does not function at our whim. The Christian will say he can do God's will, Buddha teaches this is the nature of God's suffering, he desires to be known, loved, and obeyed. If it is not so, God will suffer as humans do. Such a God cannot be the ultimate, for he shows his subjection to illusion, his attachment to the impermanent.
On smaller scales it is possible to delude ourselves into believing we have defeated nature, but as has been shown in recent memory, it is simply another illusion. What takes people many years to build, nature can destroy in moments. Our desires do not matter at all, the only lasting effects are those we have on each other, on society. Every material endeavor is impermanent, and thus of no genuine importance, although it may serve a temporary purpose.
I say that to differentiate it from a cold hearted variant: Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.
You advise people to empty their mind in meditation. I submit that two or more people being one, as expressed in some religions, means something different than what you describe.
I never proclaimed your experience to be a delusion. I don't think you know what I comprehend. You have claimed the ability to choose whether or not to use your mind, and I submit that being conscienctious would be a matter of using it.
I am sorry, but I have not mastered the ability to meditate, not using my mind, and to converse with you at the same time. Have you? You have shared your definition of faith. Your definition is based on the information and experience that you know, or do not know. I know and accept another. So, you can count me out of your 'We'.
I have not seen you actually expand the Golden Rule, this is what I am requesting you do. The words are irrelevant if you do not explain what they mean to you.
I have expressed meditation as a method for realizing oneness, once this is realized then everything else is understood. I have also more recently stated that contemplation can result in the same, although it is more difficult because the mind wishes to be logical, rational.
You stated you believe me to be delusional, I have apparently misinterpreted this statement, apologies.
I have already stated that consciousness is distinct from mind. When you are fully aware of your surroundings, the people around you, it is not necessary to involve mind other than in communication. If someone is down, make them laugh, try to lift them. If someone is carrying bags, ask to help. It is not necessary to involve mind, for what? To ask "should I help this person, or remain in my own world"? What is the need?
You have not aligned yourself with a faith, so I am not sure why you even feel the "we" applied directly to you in the first place? It doesn't apply to me either, for I rely on experience, I just have experiences which seem irrational to those which do not understand. By "we" is meant humans in this instance, I am still human, you are still human, however this is a generality - all generalities have exceptions.
Obviously, any form of communication is not meditative by its very nature, rather it is a distraction. Then, what is the point of perfecting love, becoming love, if I do not share it? This is not a commodity, in fact the more you share of it the more it increases. Devotion to a life of spiritual practice would not represent balance, but then, neither would living a materialist life.
Separate names with a comma.