To: K-list
Recieved: 2003/04/18 09:18
Subject: Re: [K-list] Evil
From: Danijel Turina
On 2003/04/18 09:18, Danijel Turina posted thus to the K-list:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
At 00:09 18.4.2003 -0400, mundane zen wrote:
>>>>Some things need to be clarified here. First, there exists the
>>>>absolute good, and it is God.
>>>
>>>How does this clarify anything? Buddhists don't require a belief
>>>in God. Are Buddhists evil?
>>
>>The buddhists have very strange concepts, especially the western
>>ones, the atheists who want to have a theory behind it.
>
>
>That's a rather glib and highly questionable description of
>Buddhists and their motivation.
I stand behind the statement. In the West, buddhism is mostly seen as
a good choice for those who want to be religious, and want to have
nothing to do with God.
>>However, the buddhists believe in dharma, the absolute law of
>>rightness, therefore believing there to be the absolute criterion
>>of judgment.
>
>
>To characterize the Dharma as absolute law is inaccurate.
It isn't.
>"All dharmas are marked with emptiness,
>They do not appear or disappear,
>Are not tainted or pure,
>Do not increase or decrease."
>
>-- The Heart Sutra
Prajnaparamita hrdayasutra is poetry. One can see that the author
talks about dharmas, not dharma, as a single law. However, buddhism
has one problem.
You see, there can be only two consistent philosophical systems:
those that believe in the existence of the positive principle, and
those that do not. The positive principle explains the presence of
the positive things in experience; for instance, the blissful states
in meditation are explained as a more direct contact with the
fundamental positive principle. The good deeds are recommended
because they harmonize a person with the positive force, thus leading
to salvation. The positive parts of worldly experience are explained
as partial presence of the positive principle.
The other consistent system says there to be no underlying positive
principle, and that it is all based on nothingness, or emptiness.
This system lacks any moral judgment, and in it, it doesn't matter
whether you save lives or kill. There being no positive principle, it
is completely irrelevant what one does, and the only criterion of
judgment can be personal benefit or pleasure.
Buddhism is often claimed to be of this, second kind; however, its
other teachings are inconsistent with the negation of the positive
principle. If you study Dhamma Pada, you will see that it recommends
high moral values, that it recommends compassion, nonviolence and
goodness. Were there no positive principle and a criterion of
goodness, such instructions would be contradictory to the essential
teaching. Dhamma Pada also tells us about the existence of hell. If
there is no positive principle as an antithesis, what is, then, hell,
and relative to what?
One can argue that the state of emptiness (sunyata) is positive as
such, but were it only emptiness as we can imagine it, meaning
nothingness, then the teaching of buddhism in fact adds up to the
recommendation of suicide in order to escape suffering. However, in
careful inspection of the buddhist teaching, one cannot find support
for this thesis. Therefore I conclude that sunyata means the
emptiness in the same way in which citta-vrtti-nirodha of Patanjali
means emptiness, this emptiness however being only a state of calm
spirit, in which the underlying positive principle is experienced.
However, the other teachings of buddhism seem to dispute this (the
teaching of anatman, for instance), and I can only say that buddhism,
as a philosophy, has many gaps, unlike vedanta, which says that
brahman is the underlying positive principle, that in a state of
samadhi atman is recognized as brahman, and that the nature of
brahman is sat-cit-ananda, where discrimination of the positive
things in the world invariably leads to the realization of brahman.
>>... The buddhists seem to have a good idea of how the things work,
>>they just didn't get to see who's behind it. When they do, they are
>>no longer the buddhists, they are the buddhas.
>
>
>"They don't get to see who's behind it, but when they do..." Isn't
>that a contradiction?
It is, but if you look carefully, you'll see that I didn't say it. I
said that they didn't (yet) get to see who's behind it, but it
doesn't mean that they never will.
>Practice (meditation) does usually lead to experiences of
>enlightenment, but there are degrees, partial, full, etc., and it's
>usually not permanent. And yes, during the experience you become
>the Buddha. You experience your true nature, the ultimate reality,
>God, spirit, whatever you want to call it. The point is, you don't
>need to believe in God or call what you experience God. It's only
>necessary to have faith that practice will eventually yield
>results.
If you are saying that there is the underlying positive principle of
reality, which is revealed in meditation, and it doesn't matter how
we call it, then I agree.
>>I was illustrating the point for those who seem to think that the
>>absolute statements like "all is God" or "I Am" or "everything just
>>IS" can answer the concrete questions. If evil is relative, then it
>>cannot exist as an absolute. However, since the world too is
>>relative, the evil can very well exist in the world; in fact, it is
>>as real as the world itself.
>
>Evil is obviously subjective,
Everything is subjective, for perception is possible only when a
thing is projected upon atman. Then, subjective experience takes
place. However, the fact that the experience is necessarily
subjective doesn't mean that this subjective experience doesn't have
valid foundations in the objective reality.
My perception of the computer I write this on is certainly
subjective, but it has the basis in the objective reality of the
computer, and the proof of that can be verified by all who read the
messages. Similarly, evil is also perceived by a subject, and evil
has meaning only relative to a subject, however the objective
existence of evil can be observed, for were it not objective, it
couldn't influence the subject and cause perception. If my computer
didn't exist, you wouldn't read this message.
>as it takes a subject to judge something to be
>good or evil. With regard to absolute evil, how is this possible?
>
The clouds are also relative, and perception of them is subjective.
However, they still objectively manage to hide the Sun from your
subjective sight.
>How can
>there be evil without it being relative to some effect on a living
>person?
Evil is defined as a thing or act that gets in the way of
manifestation of the positive principle, which is God. Without a
subject to have his awareness of God disturbed, evil does not exist.
If a rock falls upon another rock and breaks it, it is not evil, just
an interaction of matter. However, if a person intentionally tortures
other persons with intent of breaking their consciousness, it is
evil, exactly because there is a subject who is influenced. So you
see, you just repeated the definition of evil in different words -
objective evil is that, which influences the subject in a certain
manner.
>>>God is a word.
>>
>>Yes, but "brick" is also a word. The word can't smack you in the
>>head, but the brick behind it can. Also, the word "God" isn't the
>>absolute criterion of goodness, but God is.
>
>
>I'm not suggesting that the word God IS God. I'm just trying to
>figure out your particular definition. Saying that God is absolute
>goodness doesn't get us very far either, because good and evil
>require a subjective judgment and a subjective experience.
I would heartily recommend you to act on my recommendation to read
the book I wrote, the commentary of Bhagavad-gita,
http://www.danijel.org/eng/gita/
Most of the second and third chapter is extremely relevant to this
discussion, and most of the time I just redundantly repeat the things
I wrote there. All your questions have already been answered, however
I simply do not have enough time and energy to do it all over again.
This is exactly the reason why I write books, for people to have it
all in one place.
>>I am using the only definition that is logically consistent: God is
>>the fundamental reality, and this fundamental reality is also the
>>fundamental positive principle in all.
>
>If you make positive then you make negative. Thus you reduce this
>fundamental reality by half.
Existence of nothingness doesn't reduce the nature of fullness,
however things might exist that consist of both in different amounts.
>>>Actually, a divine perspective would seem to be beyond concepts
>>>like good and evil.
>>
>>Actually, a Divine perspective would represent total, absolute
>>knowledge of reality, which includes good and evil.
>
>
>Ok, I'll buy that. But this seems to contradict what you said
>above. Are you perhaps saying that God is absolute good, but can
>perceive absolute evil? That I don't buy. It's limiting.
A computer can perceive lousy programs and viruses; in fact, it
executes them. However, the viruses and trojans do not manifest the
potential of the computer, in fact they hinder its manifestation.
Likewise, the existence of the relative field is based on God,
although not all relative things are of God. Nevertheless, God is
aware of their existence and nature.
>>>This raises the age old question, how can anything be considered
>>>absolutely evil if God is all powerful?
>>
>>God is not all powerful. God is the fundamental reality. However,
>>this world is an alternative to God, in most part. As such, it by
>>definition must contain that, which is opposite to God, and that is
>>evil. So, in order for the world to exist, and in order for the
>>world not to be identical to God, the world must necessarily
>>contain evil. QED.
>
>
>The whole problem with this line of reasoning is that you're trying
>to objectify the transcendental -- treating a property of the whole
>as if it were one of its constituent parts. This creates a tangled
>hierarchy. While God can be experienced subjectively, as spirit or
>the true Self in all of us, this does not mean that God can be
>turned into a separate object. To do so would be to create an
>image of God, and thus be a form of idolatry.
As I said, I had valid reasons to recommend reading my book.
>>>Angels?
>>
>>Yes, the beings made of substance which is so blissful, that you
>>would have to multiply your strongest orgasm with a hydrogen bomb
>>to get the general idea.
>
>
>I fail to see how such a powerful force could be distinguished as a
>separate entity, independent of the spirit of God, by mere humans.
Nevertheless, they exist and can be perceived, but do not judge "mere
humans" by your own standards. There are many things you are unaware
of, and human potential extends far beyond that, which is now known
to you.
>>I never said that the relative attitudes are no good. I said that
>>the relativistic attitudes are no good. There is a big difference.
>
>
>Relativistic and relative are from the same root word. I don't see
>how there can be a big difference.
The point is, with a point of reference, one can make a judgment,
although relative. However, without the point of reference, one can
only relativize everything and wallow in despair and cynicism.
>I think this relativistic attitude you describe is dead on. In
>order to judge something good and evil, you need to put it into
>context. You need to define two frames of reference. For example,
>is murder absolutely wrong? Considering all the suffering that
>occurred in WW II, would it have been wrong to murder Hitler in
>1938?
Murder isn't absolutely wrong, for then death too would have to be
judged as absolutely wrong, and yet people die all the time. Death is
sometimes good, and sometimes not. When it is not good, we can
observe it as a wrongness, and observe evil in this act.
As much as a prayer can sometimes be an evil, so can murder at some
times be an act of goodness.
(BTW, Hitler didn't cause the WW2. WW2 caused Hitler. The dictators
similar to him were sprouting all over at that time; he was merely
one of them.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPp/C6lPBuvzR3sznEQJ2/gCfXEB90VAQyNo3YvuiFENJhI8DQ2AAmwVw
LLok8rl2wJOjK1XbdzE+4uAo
=zZng
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org
To get a reminder of your password or adjust your subscription, visit:
http://kundalini-gateway.org/mailman/listinfo/k-list_kundalini-gateway.org
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.