Why bother with morality and ethics?

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

On 22.11.2024 at 2:07 PM, Sahaja said:

2.  Calm abiding, sympathetic joy, acceptance, equanimity  etc arise naturally from deep cultivation. These have behavioral consequences in how we conduct ourselves and treat others. In deep cultivation they become the natural response, not contrived/imposed or with a root in attachment to an outcome or a goal or to egoic self interest. 

 

3. While karma may exist, chasing merit or imposing external or even our own internal standards can become an attachment that impedes cultivation energetically or have other unintended consequences. 

One (of the admittedly very few) eastern texts I’ve read, has been the greatest:
 

 

BG 2.47: You have a right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, nor be attached to inaction.

BG 9.34: Always think of Me, be devoted to Me, worship Me, and offer obeisance to Me. Having dedicated your mind and body to Me, you will certainly come to Me.

 

BG 14.5: O mighty-armed Arjun, the material energy consists of three guṇas(modes)—sattva (goodness), rajas (passion), and tamas (ignorance). These modes bind the eternal soul to the perishable body.

 

 

[Daniel]

On 10/10/2024 at 10:51 AM, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

Is morality a tool used for control?

 

It can be, and often is.

 

On 10/10/2024 at 10:51 AM, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

So why moralize?

 

I moralize because, moral rules are shortcuts.  They make choices easier for me.  As an added beneficial side-effect, when another individual adopts similar rules, we are also likely to share similar values.  Having settled on my own moral code helps me navigate my circumstances.  

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

24 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

It can be, and often is.

 

 

I moralize because, moral rules are shortcuts.  They make choices easier for me.  As an added beneficial side-effect, when another individual adopts similar rules, we are also likely to share similar values.  Having settled on my own moral code helps me navigate my circumstances.  

Allow me to share another text that I’ve probably shared to much already, but very relevant: 

http://nietzsche.holtof.com/Nietzsche_thus_spake_zarathustra/I_01.html
 

Hope you’ll enjoy it!

[Daniel]

10 minutes ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

Allow me to share another text that I’ve probably shared to much already, but very relevant: 

http://nietzsche.holtof.com/Nietzsche_thus_spake_zarathustra/I_01.html
 

Hope you’ll enjoy it!

 

Right!

 

What comes next?

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

3 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Right!

 

What comes next?

This:

 

«Now I go alone, my disciples, You too, go now alone. Thus I want it. Go away from me and resist Zarathustra! And even better: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he deceived you… One pays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil. And why do you not want to pluck at my wreath? You revere me; but what if your reverence tumbles one day? Beware lest a statue slay you. You say that you believe in Zarathustra? But what matters Zarathustra? You are my believers – but what matter all believers? You had not yet sought yourselves; and you found me. Thus do all believers; therefore all faith amounts to so little. Now I bid you to lose me and find yourselves; and only then when you have all denied me will I return to you… that I may celebrate the great noon with you.»

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

Now I go alone, my disciples, You too, go now alone. Thus I want it

 

" ... You too, go now alone ... "

 

^^ Thou Shalt Go Alone ^^

 

"  ... thus I want it ... "

 

?? imposing their will over others ?? 

 

2 hours ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

Thus do all believers

 

"All" cannot be literally true.  It's hyperbolic, yes?

 

2 hours ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

only then when you have all denied me will I return to you

 

If 'all' is not literal, then perhaps 'only' is not literal either.  Otherwise, this feels like coercion.  Do what I say, else you will be without me.  If you want me, do what I say.

 

---

 

That's how I'm reading it.  The disciple is still bound.  Not free.  How do you read it?

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

That's how I'm reading it.  The disciple is still bound.  Not free.  How do you read it?

You know the famous Nietzche quote, «God is dead and we have killed him,» right. This is often interperted as an atheistic statement, however, I and many other believe it is more a statement about how enlightenment thought, rationalism, scientism whatever, have made God obsolete. 
 

And by doing that, removing God from the equation, the long held moral convictions and traditions lost it’s authority. So, how do we navigate in this world where the long held beliefs no longer hold any power, and nihilism rules? A world where there is no higher power, no plan, no meaning, no objective right or wrong?

 

By creating your own values, self overcoming, creating, saying yes to life (according to Nietzche). This is the so called Übermench (over man). Asking people to find themself and not be mere diciples of a new prophet is extremely congruent with his philosophy, and «think for yourself,» is by no means a way of telling people how to think. 
 

Know thyself.

 

Here, the three metamorphoses are relevant as well: the camel (following dogma), turning in to the rebellious lion, before achieving its ultimate form: the creative and playful child.

 

«People have never asked me as they should have done, what the name of Zarathustra precisely meant in my mouth, in the mouth of the first immoralist; for that which distinguishes this Persian from all others in the past is the very fact that he was the exact reverse of an immoralist. Zarathustra was the first to see in the struggle between good and evil the essential wheel in the working of things. The translation of morality into the realm of metaphysics, as force, cause, end-in-itself, is his work. But the very question suggests its own answer. Zarathustra created this most portentous of all errors,—morality; therefore he must be the first to expose it. Not only because he has had longer and greater experience of the subject than any other thinker,—all history is indeed the experimental refutation of the theory of the so-called moral order of things,—but because of the more important fact that Zarathustra was the most truthful of thinkers. In his teaching alone is truthfulness upheld as the highest virtue—that is to say, as the reverse of the cowardice of the "idealist" who takes to his heels at the sight of reality. Zarathustra has more pluck in his body than all other thinkers put together. To tell the truth and to aim straight: that is the first Persian virtue. Have I made myself clear? ... The overcoming of morality by itself, through truthfulness, the moralist's overcoming of himself in his opposite—in me—that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth.»

— Ecce Homo, "Why I Am a Fatality"

[Daniel]

@Sir Darius the Clairvoyent,

 

Isn't that moralizing?

 

For example:  If there are 3 transformations, then a moral choice is being made that the first 2 transformations are immoral.

 

It seems as if moralizing is still happening, but it's happening in a new better way?

[Daniel]

At it's most basic, "don't follow the crowd" is a moral imperative?

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, Sir Darius the Clairvoyent said:

This:

 

«Now I go alone, my disciples, You too, go now alone. Thus I want it. Go away from me and resist Zarathustra! And even better: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he deceived you… One pays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil. And why do you not want to pluck at my wreath? You revere me; but what if your reverence tumbles one day? Beware lest a statue slay you. You say that you believe in Zarathustra? But what matters Zarathustra? You are my believers – but what matter all believers? You had not yet sought yourselves; and you found me. Thus do all believers; therefore all faith amounts to so little. Now I bid you to lose me and find yourselves; and only then when you have all denied me will I return to you… that I may celebrate the great noon with you.»

 

 

I see this as important . And it is not the only person that says it .

 

Krishnamurti said it very clearly and dismissed his ;'disciples'  .   I am not your guru , you have to be your own guru .'

 

'Bhagwan' Rajneesh's whole 'experiment ' was like that. ( After he broke his vow of silence he said that very clearly " There are two people that are enlightened in this world ' me and Krishnamurti, we are saying the same thing , Krishnamurti by words and me by example of leading you down this stupid path you are on ... you want a guru ? I will be that guru and show you what that leads to .'

 

Even Crowley ; " Follow or imitate me then expect ; 'The Demon Crowley '    to come after you !     

 

- note all these teachers where in the western tradition , yes, even  Rajneesh , thats why he had so many western followers ; it was basically Neo-Reichian  psychology , dressed up in eastern terms  with some cathartic exercises  and a mix of 'comparative religious comment ' .

 

To not  'allow ' people to set you up as leader ... in this regard .... and seeing that as a power trip or some type of  denial to their rights , or whatever is being suggested above  or 'imposing your will over them ' is ridiculous  !

 

people start following me and believing I am the messiah , and I say I am not and go away ... and that is me imposing my will on them ?

 

 

 

What a 'will imposing over others' bastard !

[Thrice Daily]

One of the reasons I like Taoism so very much. Natural processes emerging, clues all around, practice is a living process, You can indeed be your own teachers, and all the more better when you discover truth's/techniques for yourself by yourself. 

 

Teachers are good, but only for seedlings and saps. Its up to you to branch out. I think virtue is good though. This helps with the way.

[Nungali]

21 hours ago, Thrice Daily said:

One of the reasons I like Taoism so very much. Natural processes emerging, clues all around, practice is a living process, You can indeed be your own teachers, and all the more better when you discover truth's/techniques for yourself by yourself. 

 

Teachers are good, but only for seedlings and saps. Its up to you to branch out. I think virtue is good though. This helps with the way.

 

If you put all the above together 'nature is your teacher' . That way you are not going 'against the way  ' . But this requires a previous skill ; to be able to observe and 'read' nature correctly .  And that takes time , individually, a quick modern glance will not do it , at least a few hours of silent observation . And for people collectively ; many generations .

 

But if we upset, imbalance or destroy nature , then we are 'learning' from our own interference, disruption and destruction .

[Thrice Daily]

I think t's useful to remain as humble as possible with it all, anytime the ego creeps in, bow and not let it take over. None Action is the greatest teacher I think, Wu Wei. Sometimes though it is useful to remember the Dragon and to keep in Tiger in check. 

 

I think a great deal can come from, thanking the earth, and thanking the universe, while staying in the middle of it and not making such a big deal about it.

 

I do still believe that God is beyond this, but I think by the sheer fact that it's unsubstatiatable if it is there, so not so easy to talk about. There is a spirit though I believe that somehow precedes the forces and energies that we can work with.

 

Its fun trying to discern the different energies, but for me it still remains a great enigma, at some point I'm fairly certain it will become appreciable common snese or i'll at least be able to recognize it as such.. That's the plan anyway. Blessings To All

[Sanity Check]

In observing myself & others.

 

It seems that morality moves with God and nature.

 

While immorality moves against God and nature.

 

If nature is a river.

 

Morality moves with the current.

 

While immorality is battling the current of the river.

 

Edited yesterday at 04:22 AM by Sanity Check