Morality

[suninmyeyes]

[Movitz]

Sorry I hadn't seen this response. Is it different for each person? Well yes and no. On a practical, day-to-day relative level i.e. when we see the world through as Buddha would say, the eyes of ignorance then the absolute way of being is not different for each person...it cannot be as it is Absolute. This is why throughout history spiritual people such as Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tsu etc describe the same experience but using different ways.

 

On an Absolute level i.e. seeing the world with Right View what we call 'each person' does not exist. The me that types this is the sacred expressed as me, the you that asked is the sacred expressed as you. When you Awaken to the sacred that is all you see and therefore the distinctions we normally make are no longer made.

 

Ultimately, the Absolute is noticed as a settled presence which is common to all things. When we are still and silent we begin to notice it within and as Buddha, Moses, Kashyapa, Mary Magdalene, Jesus and so on discovered IT can be noticed around us. It is the same within and without as there is only IT.

 

Not sure this helps lol!

 

I think I understand what you're saying: we can only truly know this way of being through inner inspection, and thus arguing about it will not reveal the answer.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Movitz

[Stosh]

Try Catholicism becouse I cant shake of dualism? Thanks for your suggestion , I am not sure of its intention, but not my cup of tea nevertheless.

Do keep in mind that shaking of duality may not be everyones goal either,as well that not all the flowers blossom at the same time.

Why would being moral be conected with religions or Catholicism at all? Is it something to do with enviroment you live in , becouse where I am from moral means has different connotations.

 

Let me try and be clearer:

here we go - moral from dictionary:

mor·al

   [mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA

of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

 

 

What I am saying that for example if one cant be respectful in some situation becouse we get overtaken by emotions than it is much better to relay on morals and ethics/ a common human decency in that case and do not react causing harm.

Until a person becomes more integrated and truly well intentioned in their being and is able to live without any crutches , until than common human morals and decency are in my opinion here to protect us and make life better.

Just my point of view and stage where I am at.

 

We arent far apart on the definition of morals, Your printed one fits my point fine,(it doesnt conflict with the point I was making).

I mentioned Catholicism in particular because I was raised into it and so I know it well enough to speak of it.

What morals have to do with religions is that society codifies moral behavior into its religions,

the goal and purpose of the religion is to get everybody on the same page about what those morals-(rules of behavior) are.

The rest of the religion is gravy.

I am not condemning your world view,

Im just saying I dont think some of the basic conceptry you abide by

and wish to continue to abide by and consider virtuous

is basically morally dualist

so I believe is may not be a great fit for the pespectives

that I think the founders of Tao laid out.

But if you dont see it that way, thats perfectly fine too

as far as I am concerned.

 

Who says you have to be respectful?

Who says you should do no harm?

 

Those are moral dictates are they not?

and you agree with them as such

Do you not?

 

and without those dictates what would you do?

Who would you be without them, would you go about slaughtering people? like Saddam H.

or would you have a more personal sense of compassion beneath?

 

It is a subtle difference I admit, and that is why I posed it as a question rather than making a definitive statement regarding it.. but I contest that the founders of Tao believed that behavior stemming from ones innate compassion was more rewarding than abiding by societal dictate.

You yourself seem to indicate that your innate reaction could be quite different than if you did not superceded it with a prepared response

Edited May 28, 2012 by Stosh

[Birch]

I don't get the comparing people to lions part. It's probably about people comparing what they think about lions to people. We've been doing that one for ages to all purposes. Always our own, never the lions'

[manitou]

When the Tao is lost, the concept of right and wrong, good and bad, arises.

 

No moral code other than what's in our hearts, once we get there, as I see it. When we get to the depth that we seekers are looking for, the outreach in our souls is toward the light, by its own nature. No need to discern what is 'bad' or 'wrong'; it is all relative.

 

Something which is bad for you might be oh so right for me.

 

My guess is that Saddam Hussein thought he was a moral man too. In a rather odd way.

[suninmyeyes]

Hi manitou (this is not really all directed to you , but to clarifying my point of view too),

Yes Saddam posibly did think that he was a moral man . I also remeber reading about atrocities in Ivory Coast about 12 years ago where its leader claimed that he was orederd by God directly /God spoke to him-he probably thought he was doing the right thing.

However that is not what I am talking about at all.

I am talking about basic human decency and common sense , need on individual and wider social level to ditinguish between right and wrong as they are so very important in order for everyone to live better life. As well as abide by certain ethics of not harming.

These ethics and morals come in place when people forget themselves and act either insane and go around killing, raping , mugging... Social and personal dos and donts.

Purley becouse world is not in situation now to have people just like this out of sky thinking and acting out of their heart . Not today . Not even big procenat of spiritual people.

These dos and donts annoy me sometimes as well , but some are necessary for now.

 

I grew up in a communist country , that was under dictatorship . Later on during some crisis a lot of people wouldnt get payed for doing their job. Sometimes for a month or two, but would still keep their job working daily full hours for free becouse they had no other chance of empolyment. Nowadays it has all changed a lot and basic human rights are almost in bloom. This is just one small example of how important it is that ethics and morals are employed on social level in society that we are in right now.

Not talking about ideal society , I am talking about the stuff going on now.

How about the women in Egypt being able to vote finally last week? These ethics and type of moral are highly important.

 

On personal level a lot of 'seekers' are unable to listen to the depths of their being at all times. Unfortunate , but true. What to do in that case? Discriminate logically, try be as emotionally mature as possible and relay on personal morals if we cant on the inner knowing and intuition.

 

Until one can listen deeply please employ common sense ,logic , emotional reasoning as all these are a type of moral as they are based predominantley on social conditioning and not direct inner knowledge.

Thats my take on this, think I said all I can say on this for now.

[Brian]

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Brian]

Yes, there exist an absolute moral code, whether one decides to follow it or not determines whether one chooses what be right or wrong to follow but does not alter what be right and wrong.

In other words there is one way , if one chooses to follow it then one gets it right, though if one chooses to not follow it then one does not get it right and gets it wrong.

Everyone is on the same way, the difference is that some are going the right way while some just think it so...

 

How does one know whether one is going the right way or whether one just thinks one is going the right way?

[manitou]

How does one know whether one is going the right way or whether one just thinks one is going the right way?

 

 

I'm going out on a limb here and saying that the Right Way = Return to One's Self, once one sees the necessity for something other than the mere physical existence. I think the words of others, the sages, the buddas....these are the huge guideposts that we use to get to the inner Way. But nobody can do it for us, once the necessity is clear.

 

Just like dying.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Brian]

I'm going out on a limb here and saying that the Right Way = Return to One's Self, once one sees the necessity for something other than the mere physical existence. I think the words of others, the sages, the buddas....these are the huge guideposts that we use to get to the inner Way. But nobody can do it for us, once the necessity is clear.

 

Just like dying.

 

I'm good with that (perhaps because it ties in nicely with my own take on it?) but I still wonder: are there others wandering in the opposite direction who feel just as strongly that they are returning to self, too? If so, are they really? If so, does that mean "the path" is a closed loop of some shape? (This has some bizarre implications, I think.) Or, if the opposite direction from "the right way" is "the wrong way," wouldn't each traveller's conviction become more certain with each step?

 

What do you think?

 

That said, I personally think people on the right path begin to radiate "goodness" and people on the wrong path begin to radiate "badness" while the majority wandering aimlessly from curb to curb just wander. I think people on the right path generally recognize the goodness they are approaching while those heading in the opposite direction recognize the badness they are approaching, and both like what they see. (I think that some of the latter try to cloak themselves.) People in the middle get glimpses in both directions and have the free will to start walking in either direction or to just continue wandering. I also think everyone has the option to change their mind about it.

 

EDIT: I guess one should stop using the brain and just "be?" Chop wood, carry water, take care of loved ones, do little harm?

Edited June 1, 2012 by A Seeker

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[manitou]

That said, I personally think people on the right path begin to radiate "goodness" and people on the wrong path begin to radiate "badness" while the majority wandering aimlessly from curb to curb just wander. I think people on the right path generally recognize the goodness they are approaching while those heading in the opposite direction recognize the badness they are approaching, and both like what they see. (I think that some of the latter try to cloak themselves.) People in the middle get glimpses in both directions and have the free will to start walking in either direction or to just continue wandering. I also think everyone has the option to change their mind about it.

 

EDIT: I guess one should stop using the brain and just "be?" Chop wood, carry water, take care of loved ones, do little harm?

 

 

The reason I know that to be my Truth is because not only do I hear the assent of my own heart as I get closer and closer to the Essence within, I have read many recounts from the Masters of just about any tradition you can imagine - who have come to exactly the same conclusion. The more we peel the onion, the more experiential it gets on the inner layers.

 

I don't even see it as good paths or bad paths any more. I was on a Bad path for so many years - the path of alcoholism. But it turned into the Good Path after all. All is so relative. They're only seemingly good or seemingly bad; they all go to the same place in the end, I think, because we all have the same question implanted within us: Who Am I?

Edited June 2, 2012 by manitou

[suninmyeyes]

...

A person "in tune with the whatever-you-call-it" needn't think about "right" and "wrong" because that awareness and that understanding come naturally. There's something of a catch-22 here, however, because the process of becoming "in tune" requires (among other things) good & moral behavior. As one's degree of "in-tuneness" improves, so does one's grasp of the meaning of the phrase "good & moral behavior."

...

Yes I agree with this, there is a process-it is rarley a jump and every stage is important to aknowledge for what it is. It is a sort of a twist and a catch -22 .

The reason is becouse intense build up of negative conditioning needs a lot of positive to nutrualise it. Which is often the case nowdays.

If we reflect deeply and meditate world as ourself - at the moment in the world we definetly need more good attidues ecologicaly, deeply well intendioned and constructive , as well as raising the ability to act as oppose to react and destruct on a large social and personal scales.

Cultivating good qualities as a tool can be very helpful.

 

Manitou said 'all is relative'- I agree with this too .

Edited June 2, 2012 by suninmyeyes

[Wayfarer]

The reason I know that to be my Truth is because not only do I hear the assent of my own heart as I get closer and closer to the Essence within, I have read many recounts from the Masters of just about any tradition you can imagine - who have come to exactly the same conclusion. The more we peel the onion, the more experiential it gets on the inner layers.

 

I don't even see it as good paths or bad paths any more. I was on a Bad path for so many years - the path of alcoholism. But it turned into the Good Path after all. All is so relative. They're only seemingly good or seemingly bad; they all go to the same place in the end, I think, because we all have the same question implanted within us: Who Am I?

 

Manitou is right. We simply need to look within to find the answers, the guidance. Being on the 'Right Path' is not a choice, it is not an active decision but a way of being. If you look to the Buddhist Four Noble Truths and specifically the Eightfold Noble Path we see that we cannot have Right Action, Right Speech, Right Awareness and so on unless we first have Right View. So we can have Right View by quietly becoming aware of the presence of our True Self within or noticing it outside of us. All religions offer the practice of quiet contemplation/meditation and stillness, this is because what is Holy is expressed silently and as a settled quality so the more tranquil and still we become the more we fall in line with it and the greater our chance of Noticing it.

 

Here is the key point: there is a Holy way of being, it is being as the Holy. When we become soft, gentle, peaceful, calm, silent and still we nurture our true-heart and this begins to be felt and to blossom within us. When this is the central point of focus and mindfulness in our lives what need is there for a moral code? Commandments are only present because people have lost touch with what is holy; the Sacred Tao, Buddha, God. Following Awakening, we then learn how to integrate this quality into our lives - this is where the path of truth begins.

 

Heath

Edited June 2, 2012 by Wayfarer

[Brian]

Thanks, all. This is helpful.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Protector]

Since you guys want something I have to this extend, then I will give it

[Simple_Jack]

Sorry I hadn't seen this response. Is it different for each person? Well yes and no. On a practical, day-to-day relative level i.e. when we see the world through as Buddha would say, the eyes of ignorance then the absolute way of being is not different for each person...it cannot be as it is Absolute. This is why throughout history spiritual people such as Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tsu etc describe the same experience but using different ways.

 

On an Absolute level i.e. seeing the world with Right View what we call 'each person' does not exist. The me that types this is the sacred expressed as me, the you that asked is the sacred expressed as you. When you Awaken to the sacred that is all you see and therefore the distinctions we normally make are no longer made.

 

Ultimately, the Absolute is noticed as a settled presence which is common to all things. When we are still and silent we begin to notice it within and as Buddha, Moses, Kashyapa, Mary Magdalene, Jesus and so on discovered IT can be noticed around us. It is the same within and without as there is only IT.

 

Not sure this helps lol!

Why should we have to exasperate this division of 'relative' and 'absolute' levels of experience? I'm all for demolishing this dichotomy! Who's with me????

[Simple_Jack]

I was trying to portray how important use of morals can be and used Saddam as an extreme example. What I am trying to further convey is that for most of us it is more than useful and reccomended to use common sense and morals at times.

Make world and our lifes a more livable place.

 

Saying that , I do actually like the meaning of this:

'Who are you without judgement?

Know that, and acceptance of all that is, lies before you'

But honestly wouldnt be able to employ it at work or when buying a bus ticket, that could be just me though.

 

Just trying to bring it all down to practical level, as from personal expirience sometimes I do feel out of whack and some morals do come handy.

 

OK enough of moralising .Later.

I think instead of looking at it in a way like "Be a good person because society/religion expects that of you," or "Be a good person or else!" Looking at it in a practical way, it is a means of disciplining the mind in order not be at the whim of your own mental afflictions (as a means to 'tame' the afflicted mind which allows for the generation of merit for further spiritual progress.) Discipline leading to the development of samadhi and samadhi allowing for the development of wisdom. Of course you don't want to be so bound up that you become 'ridgid;' flexibility is needed, especially in today's world.

 

One of the best works to come from China dealing with the subject of this thread is Liao-Fan's Four Lessons My link. Pay particular attention to the dialogue between the scholars and the Chan master.

 

EDIT: Changed 'Confucians to 'scholars;' It was actually stated as scholars not Confucians. Haven't read this in a while, so I got confused with the part talking of Confucius.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Simple_Jack

[Marblehead]

Why should we have to exasperate this division of 'relative' and 'absolute' levels of experience? I'm all for demolishing this dichotomy! Who's with me????

Hehehe. I am just barely able to attain the condition of non-duality on special occasions. Don't know if I can handle considering an absolute level of experience.