Sri Hitler, Jerry

[Guest guest]

Hi Jerry,

 

I was going to step around this current dance of "Who do you Love?", but

perhaps because I'm enjoying my first cup of tea in comparative quiet, and

your posts always are thought-provoking (oh no...), here goes...

 

> Taking your points briefly and in summary

>form: when l talk about dealing with the Hitler types, l'm not necessarily

>advocating hatred and hostility toward them, but rather reacting

>appropriately according to their actions. This means first, a realistic

>appraisal of the danger involved and second, resistance.

 

Below here you describe a situation happening in the present, and in this

circumstance, I would agree, as would many who tried to stand against the

might of a powerful regime. In so doing, however, many did not lower

themselves to the cruelty, condemnation and hatred of their enemies, and

that is compassion, imo.

 

Past conflicts and atrocities represent gifts of opportunity to learn the

truth once the fierce heat of feelings has abated somewhat. We can begin to

notice our own and others' actions and feeling in a more detached light,

and see where our and their programming has affected the situation. Soul

searching, perhaps...

 

lf l walk down the

>street and pass by a thug mugging an old woman, is it right conduct for me to

>simply ignore it, assuring myself that hey, the thug and l are one, l am the

>thug, the thug is l, the thug may be a saint for all l know, etc., so this

>is none of my business.......? l think most would agree that this is not

>right conduct, and that l should help to whatever extent l can.

>

> Basically, the same principle applies to the

>Hitlers who are intent on murder and crime on a mass scale. Foreign policy is

>complicated, of course, involving many practical considerations, but all

>things being equal, the moral thing to do is to try to come to the assistance

>of those being victimized. And if it's your own country, you're certainly

>going to defend yourself. l read once that Gandhi at one time wanted to try

>the same nonviolent approach against the nazis that had worked with the

>British, and that Aurobindo basically told him to stick that approach up his

>ass, assuring him that the nazis were not to be confused with the British.

 

Horses for course, to be sure, but make sure you know your horse... Ghandhi

seemed to realise the truth of the situation. Perhaps it could be said that

Hitler and his believers had a form of madness that would not/could not see

another way... A dissociation from being able to feel the sense of common

experience which Ghandhi had used so skilfully to show the British the

error of their ways?

>

> You're a pretty bright lady, Amanda .... l think you'd

>have enought sense also to be able to discriminate between the British (who

>were never perfect by any means) and the nazis. Spiritual teachings are

>wonderful, but most respected teachers have always said that while we're here

>on earth, our first duty is to respect life: our own and others' also. And

>the Gita is in line with this. lt says do your duty, fight the battle that

>has to be fought -- without anger, fear, knowing all are immortal -- the way

>of the sammurai warrior. Sounds great -- few of us have the skill to fight a

>battle that way -- so we fight anyway, if we have to, and do our best.

>

> l have no problem feeling compassion for the Hitlers

>if it's arrived at in an authentic way -- if it's TRUE compassion. To me this

>means first fully comprehending their crimes and the incredible suffering

>they've caused; in other words, trying to comprehend the incomprehensible --

>then feeling this suffering - without defending ourselves against it - and

>utter compassion for the countless victims, whose numbers can hardly be

>counted, because a million deaths touch millions more. l think the above is

>the minimum required and represents an extraordinary act of which few people

>are capable. lt's alot of shit to wade through, but if you've done it, then

>maybe you're ready to feel compassion for the Hitlers. lf you haven't done

>it, then l think the compassion is not real and is masking avoidance, denial

>and probably deeper problems that underlie that.

> So it's not

>that l'm against feeling compassion for Hitler. l just don't trust most of

>what l've heard as being the real thing. There's another element to this. No

>matter what someone has done, l can feel at least a twinge of compassion if

>l either hear or see an act of heartfelt remorse. What act of contrition did

>we ever see out of the Hitlers?

 

 

I see your point, Jerry, but may I interpose here that humans operate

within certain bounds of behaviour. For example, we have psychological

mechanisms that defend our egos from overwhelm. For instance, it may be

that the enormity of their crimes may have had the same effect on them as

it can do on us - they may not be able to gaze unflinchingly upon it, and

it would be unfair of us to demand what we are unwilling to do ourselves,

or at least understand why they may not be able to.

 

Secondly, rationalisation and the distant chain of command can objectify

one's actions. A handgun is an easier method of killing than one's bare

hands, because it removes one from the effect of one's actions to some

extent. How much more removed are they who give orders from on high,

ensconsed in their power and priviledge? Their responsibility is tragic,

all the more because they were foolish enough to believe that distant

orders diminished their responsibility.

 

Something so terrible to accept in oneself is often suppressed, denied,

reasoned into something else. We all do this to some extent. The mechanism

is there to protect our egos. How much harder is it to accept in another?

 

I have also seen in England real remorse being shown by the "Moors

murderer" Myra Hindley, and yet at the merest suggestion that she be freed

or placed in a more open prison after several decades, the public bays for

revenge, demanding that the politicians throw away the key and let her rot

for her "despicable" crimes. The media whips up a storm, and debate dies.

She has no chance to be heard fairly, to make amends, to heal herself or

others. All credibility for her has long been burnt, and ppl see only a

"snapshot" of her, not the person growing, changing and learning. And so

the wheel grinds on.

 

The Nuremburg trials were as political as they were cathartic: sections of

transcript and offered evidence that cast a more sympathetic light upon

Nazism were suppressed. I'm not advocating Nazism, I'm advocating

understanding the common mechanisms that the righteous share with the heinous.

 

With any of them, l know of no such

>expression, l know of no side that even reveals human vulnerability,

 

Well, how is history written? By the victors... You would need to to swim

upstream against the tide of opinion to find that sort of information.

 

Also, history often seems to work in a spiral: the shift of act of revenge

to reaction of revenge between states over the centuries, the lingering

hatreds and remembered atrocities that maunder on through generations that

never experienced them and yet create more, serve only to remind how

pointless and wasteful the human political mechanism is. The microcosm of

psychology within the macrocosm of politics and economics is blatantly

eveident, and yet we still look for flags to wrap ourselves in.

 

as we

>think of it. So on what is the compassion based? lt appears to be based more

>on an abstract principle than on any real experience. This is another reason

>why l don't trust the compassion professed for Hitler by some.

 

Mark's view that what is past is eminently forgivable I agree with, on the

proviso that we learn, not from knee-jerk reaction, abstract ideals or

herd-based opinions of normality, but from direct perception as far as we

are able, recognising our own ability to harm, kill and damn.

> As l alluded

>to in my last post, in nearly 20 years l've found the process of spiritual

>bypass to be rampant on the spiritual path. lt's impossible for any of us not

>to engage in it at some point. Too many of us want to try to act as if we're

>extraordinary spiritual beings -- empathizing with Hitler, etc -- before

>we've mastered the art of being ordinary ones. And it causes problems.

 

All right, I accept that we *can* make ourselves feel holier than thou

through exhibitionist compassion, but to look the whole scene in the eye

and not flinch is hard. Until such time as we can do this without becoming

frightened of our *own* capabilities to be what we see in others (because

to understand it we need to become it for a while), at least we can have a

noble aim to be compassionate. At least we can aim not to commit revenge in

the name of righteousness.

 

We need to let go of the wheel sometimes...

>

> Very briefly, the last point: l have no problems with

>spiritual teachers, per se. ln fact, l still love my 2 primary old teachers

>even tho they caused me 7 yrs of problems with my k. l love them because l

>believe they were good and kind men who did their best and wanted to help me.

>l do have a problem with the sort of teachers l ripped in my Jerryananda

>series, because they promoted themselves like gods and then acted like

>beasts. l don't mind a teacher having human flaws. l do mind it when they

>display sub-human flaws.

 

Totally agree here: hypocracy is an area that I find very difficult,

probably because I find it hard enough to be as I am, and I don't need

someone acting high and mighty when they don't honour their words in deed.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Rob

> love,

> jerry

>