Guest guest Posted April 12, 2000 Report Share Posted April 12, 2000 > G'day Antoine/Roger, > > Antoine; > " Yet asking oneself what one should not or should do, or have > or have not done, or what consequence it will or will not have, > is to my presence a very strange question in itself. IMHO, > this very form of question or questioning of one in action, > instead of simply being present to the Presence of the moment, > is one of the major cause of the act of violence in itself." > > Annie: > The above feels very right for some reason. If one is in the > moment then there is no violence happening? > > When judgement that violence has occurred happens, then this > judgement in itself "creates" the appearance of violence? We 'construct' our > own world with our judgements? Better to live > in the moment without judgement to just see/be what is here? > > Is this what you were saying, Antoine? > > Its coming together as it does (or falling apart > Thanks to everyone, 'specially Dan. > Love > Annie If there is the appearance of a "me" to ask about the consequences of an action, then asking is appropriate. If there is a "doer" that claims ownership of volition, then consideration of moral & guidelines is appropriate. Antoine offers "being present to the Presence of the moment" as superior to considering the consequences of an action. I agree, IF AND ONLY IF one can actually be present. If one's mind continuously moves outward into thought, emotion, and the excitement of identification with desire... then this excitement of identification actually PREVENTS being present. And in this case moral & ethical consideration are useful. I appreciate Antoine's comments but they refer to a high stage on the spiritual quest. His comments aren't a universal antidote. Where specifically is the boundary where moral & ethical consideration can be dropped? And what might the results be if a "doer" drops moral & ethical consideration before it's appropriate? Can we all simply disregard the moral & ethical prescriptions of religion & yoga? The Bible's commandments & Patanjali's yamas & niyamas were simply a mistake? If we claim to be above the law (moral or legal law), how would we know if this attitude is premature? Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2000 Report Share Posted April 13, 2000 Hi Roger, > ---------- > Roger Isaacs[sMTP:RIsaacs] > Thursday, April 13, 2000 3:48 AM > > Re: Antoine/morality & ethics > > > G'day Antoine/Roger, > > > > Antoine; > > " Yet asking oneself what one should not or should do, or have > > or have not done, or what consequence it will or will not have, > > is to my presence a very strange question in itself. IMHO, > > this very form of question or questioning of one in action, > > instead of simply being present to the Presence of the moment, > > is one of the major cause of the act of violence in itself." > > > > Annie: > > The above feels very right for some reason. If one is in the > > moment then there is no violence happening? > > > > When judgement that violence has occurred happens, then this > > judgement in itself "creates" the appearance of violence? We 'construct' > our > > own world with our judgements? Better to live > > in the moment without judgement to just see/be what is here? > > > > Is this what you were saying, Antoine? > > > > Its coming together as it does (or falling apart > > Thanks to everyone, 'specially Dan. > > Love > > Annie > > If there is the appearance of a "me" to ask about the consequences of an > action, then asking is appropriate. If there is a "doer" that claims > ownership of volition, then consideration of moral & guidelines is > appropriate. > > Antoine offers "being present to the Presence of the moment" as superior > to > considering the consequences of an action. I agree, IF AND ONLY IF one can > actually be present. > > If one's mind continuously moves outward into thought, emotion, and the > excitement of identification with desire... then this excitement of > identification actually PREVENTS being present. And in this case moral & > ethical consideration are useful. > > I appreciate Antoine's comments but they refer to a high stage on the > spiritual quest. His comments aren't a universal antidote. > > Where specifically is the boundary where moral & ethical consideration can > be > dropped? And what might the results be if a "doer" drops moral & ethical > consideration before it's appropriate? > > Can we all simply disregard the moral & ethical prescriptions of religion > & > yoga? The Bible's commandments & Patanjali's yamas & niyamas were simply a > mistake? > Yes, IF AND ONLY IF... :-) > If we claim to be above the law (moral or legal law), how would we know if > this attitude is premature? > IF AND ONLY IF you say so, and approved by Harshaji :-) Love, Nasir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2000 Report Share Posted April 17, 2000 Antoine Carre <carrea > > > Antoine; > > > " Yet asking oneself what one should not or should do, or have > > > or have not done, or what consequence it will or will not have, > > > is to my presence a very strange question in itself. IMHO, > > > this very form of question or questioning of one in action, > > > instead of simply being present to the Presence of the moment, > > > is one of the major cause of the act of violence in itself." > Roger: > > If we claim to be above the law (moral or legal law), how would we > know if this attitude is premature? > > First one would have to claim, > > Antoine Antoine, you recommend against considering the consequences of one's action. If your advise was adopted by a 'thinker', wouldn't it amount to a claim that the thinker is above the law? Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2000 Report Share Posted April 17, 2000 Antoine Carre <carrea > If... If... > Butterflies would stop flying in China, if they new of the tornados > they may create in Florida years latter. > Considering one not to be responsible of everything is as worst as > considering one responsible of its specific actions that determines > what some call their limited ego. > The path of above and below the law is as infinite as the shores of a > fractal lake. > Questionning my being here, or a movement, etc... one starts to walk > on this path of infinite stairs... > The thinker would have to stop thinking, to listen to the advise of > simply being there. In thinking he/she tries to understand and there > "he/she" lost me a long time ago... > > Antoine The understanding of things seems to change over the spiritual quest. For example: at the beginning one might believe that one has free will, yet later it may become apparent that there is no separate "I" that might project free will. Or, at the beginning, there might appear to be a doer, one who claims volition, yet later it might become apparent that there is only freedom. Or, at the beginning, subtle effort / meditation may appear to be useful in quieting the mind, yet later, if the mind is truly still, then there is no need for intrusive effort. I feel, Antoine, that your earlier statement something like 'one need never consider the consequences of an action' is not a universal truth. This statement might promote higher understanding, but, depending on who hears it, it might also promote licentious identification. Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.