Ethics and Morality

[Cameron]

Edited April 2, 2006 by Cameron

[Cameron]

Of course many mystics would break it down to a few words. To get the essence so to speak.

 

I remember reading somewhere " Do good. Do not do evil. Manifest good for others. This is the teaching of all Buddhas".

 

Or something along those lines.

[Cameron]

Agreed. Also, I don't know if Crowley talked about it, seemed he was more into magic than enlightenment practices(I could be wrong) But the whole Taoist and Zen thing of connecting with the universe directly addresses these higher questions. So, from your example, I would say most likely the guy who has to steal to feed his family isn't really connected for him to find himself in that kind of situation to begin with.

 

Also, using Sean's example in the post above on ethics on a boat, the people who find themselves on the boat in that kind of horrible situation maybe also are not connected?

 

Ken Cohen says by doing meditation and qigong you more and more find yourself in the right place at the right time. No need to artifically discern what is right or wrong when your truly in harmony with the Tao.

 

(IMO)

Edited April 2, 2006 by Cameron

[Lozen]

If somebody can't figure out what good or evil is, why is it supposed to be easier to figure out what their "true will" is?

 

"Do good, don't do evil" makes a lot of sense to me. Ego + power = evil, don't use your power for your own ego, use your power for the good of others. I don't have any trouble at all making sense out of that, the hard part is to actually follow through with it.

[Cameron]

Really? Crowley was talking about enlightenment also? I never got into any of his stuff. I think because I knew people into Golden Dawn or whatever when I was a teenager and it didn't seem like what they were talking about was similar to the zen practices I was getting into. Though I remeber one dude was telling me the Satanism he was studying was exactly the same as Buddhism. I sort of nodded and went interesting and didn't go any farther

 

But maybe that was just a projection of my younger mind. I guess I just don't find those practices interesting yet. Perhaps you could write an explanation of your understadning of it in a seperate thread and how it has helped your life?

Edited April 2, 2006 by Cameron

[Lozen]

I don't think terrorists are "selfless martyrs" their actions are obviously based on ego and the idea of a reward in the afterlife (read: personal gain).

 

An interesting link on Crowley, whose name shouldn't be used in the same sentence as "enlightened" in my opinion.

 

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/aleister-crowley/

[Cameron]

Ummm, ok, maybe we are using different definitions for the word "enlightnment"?

 

*Tries hard not to judge*

 

[Lozen]

It's funny that you bring up Buddhism because I've been running into almost every Buddhist I know lately. They say they are building up merit so that they can help all people on all planets at the same time. Basically their motivation is to help others, or more completely to become pure beings of light so they are better able to help others. This isn't ego. Getting satisfaction from helping the elderly is obviously not a problem; if you decide you would get more satisfaction from stealing all their belongings and messing with their medication, that is a problem.

 

I would suppose that somebody who made it a practice to invoke and work with demons would not want people to believe in good and evil.

[Cameron]

Freeform,

 

You said Magik as Aleister taught it was a form of 'enlightenment practice' before we get sidetracked I was interested in you saying a bit more on this if possible.

 

I will remain free of judging I would just be interested in what practices he specifically taught for enlightenment. Did these practices produce any enlightened people?

Edited April 3, 2006 by Cameron

[Lozen]

I live in an area with a lot of muslims and hear all kinds of oppinions. Some believe that the Americans and Isrealis are the terrorists... I've even heard that some believe that the selfless act of suicide bombers is heroic and couragous becaus they are giving up their whole existence to help free their fellow people who are being opressed by greedy powers.

 

Everyone has their individual point of view... their environment, culture and personal identity dictates what is "good" and what is "evil"... there is no objective way to measure whether an act is good or evil... unless ofcourse you, Lozen, think you have some sort of monopoly on reality and are in the position to judge for us all...

 

Luckily I don't have a monopoly on reality or the need/ability/desire to come up with examples for others (except those that ask me), and in fact there have been many philosophers, spiritual leaders and mystics that strived to do just that... If nobody has a monopoly on reality your statement that the idea of good and evil doesn't make sense for anyone seems erroneous.

 

I thought about this a lot in college, the idea of absolute truth versus relativity, and to me it seems that although there are different perspectives on what is good and what is evil, that doesn't necessarily mean we should chuck the whole thing out. There is still the possibility that some people are misguided. Rapists, terrorists and child molestors may have clever ways of justifying their actions to themselves and others, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold them accountable for their behavior. Just because some people can't figure out or agree on or have misguided ideas about what good and evil is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that we should chuck out the idea of it altogether...

Edited April 3, 2006 by Lozen

[Lozen]

And one more thing on Crowley, I want to quote Peter Falk from a post on this topic once upon a time that I can't figure out how to link to:

 

ok, so the crowley thing--i know some people who messed with some of crowley's rituals and ended up summoning demons they couldnt get rid of. finally really weirded out and drifted off some place. another guy in new york recommended crowley to me and he was a satanist. had a bookshop called the magickal childe that sold all kinds o weird shit like human bones and such. chilling vibe in the place. the dude derided me for being a christian cuz i didnt wana join the church of satan, een though i'm not a christian. according to him i had to be.

 

in the strictest sense crowley ws not a satanist. he predated the world wide church of satan which was the creation of someone else named anton levey, i think. but crowely did claim to be the beast 666. if i'm not mistaken this is kabbalistic code for satan. and for that matter satan can be anything you want to empower to be satan. it could even be your own ego.

 

now i think crowley has something to teach. i've learned myself some things from the darkside under very controlled circumstances with the proper protections. but learning from them in a respectful environment is different from being a servant fo the darkside, as was crowley.

 

be that as it may, we all choose our own paths. the balck magician deserves respect like anyone else. there are lotsof stories of high level initiates and immortals who have black adepts as close friends. sometimes they even work together. there's probably an important teaching in there somewhere.

 

all i'm saying is be aware of what you're getting into. and yes, if you want to use alchemy to empower your own ego instead of for transformation in the dao, you can do that and you amount to being a "satanist." crowely chose his path consciously though. that makes him one step above those who don't choose and end up horrific demons still believing they're wonderful loving and virtuous people.

 

it's a risk we all face, and i include myself in that. being aware of it improves our chances though.

 

on another note, there's an old daoist or zen story about a man-eating demon who is tired of being hated and persecuted. so he checks into a monastery to learn how to be a holy man. he cuts off his horns and files down his fangs, puts on the robes. this goes on for years, him cutting and filing and chanting and sitting and doing all the things the monks do. but one day he just gets tired of it. he cant take it any longer. he grows back his fangs and horns, rips off his robes and goes on a rampage, killing and eating several of the monks while terrorizing the rest. the abbott comes up to him and pats him on the back and says, "congrtualtions. you finally got it!

[cloud recluse]

 

In most western religions Ethics and Morality are God's commandments to man on how to conduct himself. They read like rules on what to do and not to do.

 

 

So it's like this strong disctate from God to man. This, in my view, may have beene xtremely usefula t the time to help govern society but mostly not what true ethical action and morality is about.

 

Perhaps laws, morality, ethics all serve to keep humans within set framework of morality with the hopes of one day awakening. My guess is Jesus didn't need commandments, Buddha didn't need eightfold path, and Lao Tzu didn't need to say anything to the guard on his way out of the country about what the way is about.

 

but clearly, our world is still in need of these laws for the time being and forseeable future in order to refrain from acts of violence agaisnt others.(or punishment for those acts)

Ialways got the impression that Daoism allows for a range of response.Firstly,the Dao does not dictate.It supports all phenomena in their unfolding without directing them,and attracts & inspires conscious creatures with its Silence,but it doesnt have to lay down a law.Our ethics are our response to this situation,a reflection of our curiosity,not trembling obedience to a vengeful Yahweh.But that doesnt mean a total relativity.To put it really crudely,the Dao "wants" to facilitate our unfolding,and this allready has ethical implications.The manifest world becomes valuable in itself,And behaviour that degrades & trivializes it would occlude the facilitating power of the Dao.Still not a specific set of rules,but a basic theme is definetely there.And in terms of personal practice,behaviour that leads to regret & confusion in self & others must be some kind of impediment.So Im looking at ethics that express exploration ,compassion and strength,and thats why I go on a bit about "being a Daoist".Not only does it seem healthier than the middle eastern religions of extreme zoarastrian duality,it also mellows out some of the hyper-transcendent excesses in Buddhism & Advaita.When your still dependent on conceptuality,there are themes you can fashion an intelligent ethic from,without sabotaging the Thirst for Awakening when it arises in its own good time.Does anyone else think this is one of the distinctive features of Daoism? Or am I completely off the mark?

 

 

Lozen,you should check out the criticism of Crowley in Nikolas & Zeena Schreck's 'Demons of the Flesh'.While some of their critique is simply pushing their own metaphysical agenda,they do target his conspicious weakspots accurately( try www.creationbooks.com ).The guy was definetely a genius & could have been a force to be reckoned with,and towers above most "occultists" in terms of personality & lifestyle,but he never seemed to get even a basic grip on his extreme neurosis.Someone that would have been fascinating to talk to,but you could never really trust.

[Cameron]

Interesting. I don't know about the success rate of the methods of his you mention They sound a little extreme. But it sounds, from the little you mentioned, that he had developed his own system to release one from conditioning.

 

I think there are subtle nuances to good or evil it's by no means a black and white thing. Hopefully through cultivation we can gradually notice those subtle nuances and not get lost in our illusions.

Edited April 3, 2006 by Cameron

[三江源]

.

Edited April 18, 2015 by 三江源

[Lozen]

[Ian]

[sean]

Wow. Jumping into this one late here. Good discussion on a heated topic.

 

Some random thoughts.

 

First, I just posted the following in another thread and think it's relevant to this one as well:

"I think postmodernism actually leads to something more when it is radical enough to turn it's own beliefs on itself. Everything is relative including that everything is relative. It's not PC, but some things are actually universally more true than other things. They are not simple, fundamentalist or even capable of being systematized necessarily. But you could say that the universe has a thrust to it that keeps cutting deep, reoccurring patterns into everything that unfolds. And this universal directionality has a wisdom that is not just a pragmatic preference. In my mind it's more like patterns of inevitability intrinsic in the cosmic seed manifestation is born from."

 

Perception of this higher order of right and wrong is something all honest seekers are working toward, wether they call it True Will, Right View, dissolving ignorance, seeing things more clearly. I think carrying around wisdom questions like the lifeboat ethics dilemna for a few years is a practice that could help this line of development.

 

Lawrence Kohlberg did some interesting work on stages of moral development. He asked a few thousand people to answer how they would respond to a dilemna that went something like this. Your wife is sick and going to die. There is a cure in a pharmacy in town that is extremely expensive and you cannot afford it. Do you steal the cure to save your wife? He got three major responses to the question, yes, no and yes. The first yes was from people who were basically selfish. Of course I'm going to steal the cure, it's my wife and I love her and want her to live and I don't know this pharmacist and could care less about him when it comes to my wife living. The second response, the no, was that he should not steal the medicine because it is wrong to do so. It's against the law, against the social order, unfair to the pharmacist, etc. The third response, was yes because life is fundamentally more valuable than medicine. This is a simplification of his work and his stages btw, but the point is, he conducted follow up studies over many years and found that people who answered the first yes tended to move to no and then to the final yes over time, whereas people who answered no, tended to move to the final yes and neither the second no or the final yes ever regressed backward. His theory was that, much like the developmental stages that have been clearly outlined in children, human morality moves through stages of increasing sophistication. And IMO, neither the ten commandments or "it's all relative" are the most advanced stage.

 

Also, before Lozen graciously points this out, Kohlberg's studies were all done with men, but a woman named Carol Gilligan did follow up research and found that women's moral develpment also moves through stages of selfish, care, universal care although woman tend not to socially interact with value hierarchies the way men do. Something like that, right Lozen?

 

 

Sean

[Lozen]

What I need to do, I suppose you could say is like following one's true will, but I think that's an odd definition of it. For example, today when I was volunteering at this women's drop-in center slash homeless shelter, they asked me if I wanted to come in on Friday and get some ammonia and clean the soap scum off of their bathroom. The idea of spending my day off cleaning someone else's bathroom is probably not even close to what I would put on my list of "my true will"--but I'm doing it because I know I need to. There is a need for it and I'm here to fill it. Do you think I was there by coincidence? So I DROP ego (the idea that only lowly unworthy people should be cleaning bathrooms, and I'm not even getting paid for it and on and on and on) and do it anyway.

 

As far as terrorism, yes it is a label, I base my label on actions--such as targetting civilians. Of course this gets complex and people can make mistakes and use good morals to accomplish misguided things (the world is full of well-intentioned fools). I really do think it's a huge stretch, though, to equate a rigid, dogmatic ideology, with anyone who wants to follow moral codes. I can sort of see why you think that having structure to morals can cause problems; however I think not having that kind of structure (i.e. nihilism) causes bigger problems. I also have trouble believing that people who want to kill civilians are really doing it out of a pure intent to help people and not out of an intent to hurt people; again I talked about tunnel vision which is something that seems obvious to me as differentiating one type of behavior from another.

 

Can you see how your belief that people need to give up their concept of morality to achieve bliss can be seen as rigid and ego-based? When you read the above paragraphs, were you actually trying to understand where I was coming from, or were you just going back to your preset belief system and trying to figure out how what I was saying was "wrong" because it doesn't fit into it?

 

Anyways, as you've indicated you already know, I do think it's unnecessary (and somewhat condescending) for you to tell me how you think I behave and your belief that I'm in need of your help--doing just fine on my own path right now, thanks, very happy with the results--and I've been you're at before (though I refer to it as "pop culture" not Taoism) and am much happier with my current belief system. In any case, there are many things about many people's belief systems that I see as hindrances, but I usually try not to point that out to them unless they ask me.

 

Also, before Lozen graciously points this out, Kohlberg's studies were all done with men, but a woman named Carol Gilligan did follow up research and found that women's moral develpment also moves through stages of selfish, care, universal care although woman tend not to socially interact with value hierarchies the way men do. Something like that, right Lozen?

Sean

 

Yes, thanks Sean. She was saying that women were making decisions based on relationships rather than a rigid hierarchical system of values. And you wrote this great post about it somewhere that I just have to find.

 

Here's the quotes, first is mine and second is Sean's/

 

Kohlberg came up with stage-based scientific models of psychological development, like the question of being asked what you would do if you had a wife who had a terminal illness that she needed a pill for in order to survive, but you couldn't afford the pill. According to Kohlberg, stealing money to get the pill is on a "lower" level developmentally than a very rigid belief in rules and justice is. Ever read Carol Gilligan's book "In a Different Voice"? Gilligan was a student of Kohlberg's but noticed that women seemed to score a lot lower developmentally on his model, indicating that their way of thinking was inferior (according to him) because of their response to this question and others like it, which was the "preconventional moral stage", focusing on agreed upon rights and moral standards instead of just rewards and punishments. So she decided his model was male-centered and that women's way of thinking is different. According to Gilligan, women may hold the "lower" stages developmentally because they are more focused on personal relationships and obligations to others. How do you tie in a perspective based on an ethic of caring (more than an ethic of justice) is a huge question. I feel like the decisions I make are somewhat emotional, I think SPECIFICALLY of individual people that would be affected by them (as in, who is depending on me to get home safe and whole) as opposed to Kohlberg's more pure and lofty point of view (and I mean no disrespect when i say that).

 

 

Ah yes, Gilligan made a wonderful contribution in her stages model for women. She identified the growth stages of women, from selfish, to caring to ... *drum roll* ... nonviolence or "universal caring". smile.gif So maybe a stage 1 woman is fighting/not fighting to protect merely herself, stage 2 is fighting/not fighting to protect those she cares about, stage 3 is fighting/not fighting as an embodied demonstration of universal compassion.

[TwoTrees]

And one more thing on Crowley, I want to quote Peter Falk from a post on this topic once upon a time that I can't figure out how to link to:

 

Hey whatever happened to Mr. Falk, anyway?

Did he take off to live in those mountains or what?

[Cameron]

She seems like she belongs on the Crowley thread...

 

 

 

 

[Lozen]

I guess someone could see the process of spirituality as 'rigid'... that's a given (because of the whole label and relativity thing), although since we're both part of the same forum - mainly discussing change and spirituality, I would have thought that changing your beliefs and point of view would be of interest.

 

I guess I just make a distinction between changing beliefs and point of view based on my own practice and learning from my own experiences and experiences of others, and unsolicited advice from people I don't know...

[sean]

I know one thing though; if you turn relativity onto itself, you cannot have statements such as "everything is relative" - all statements would have to include the observer and a time. "reality seems relative to me today" could do as (a rather clumsy) alternative.

But at what point does the whole thing turn inside out? Because you must be aware that you think that "reality seems relative to me today" is more true than "everything is relative" because of your conviction that the statement "everything is relative" is absolutely true.

 

I'm not trying to suggest that your conception is not the result of careful study and thought. I think you are sincere and are pushing postmodern thought to it's logical extremes. In my personal experience though, the bubble popped and I found myself in what I can only describe as postpostmodern thinking that includes the possibility of other absolutes besides just "everything is relative".

 

Sean

[cloud recluse]

[cloud recluse]

She seems like she belongs on the Crowley thread

I wont bother to conceal my pathetic weakness for such 'Scarlet Women',but is this really a Crowley thread.Discussions about Big Gay Al can go on forever!! He need not be the central pivot for discussing the Daoist take on ethics. Or has this become a specifically Crowley thread ? Still,she is cute

[Cameron]

I wasn't serious. Change the flow of thread to Taoist morality your take on sexual yoga, or how to win friends and influence pople as you like.