Ethics and Morality

[三江源]

.

Edited April 18, 2015 by 三江源

[cloud recluse]

I wasn't serious. Change the flow of thread to Taoist morality your take on sexual yoga, or how to win friends and influence pople as you like.

Sorry ,i wasnt being too serious either,though perhaps my dismal performace in both sexual yoga & influencing people makes Crowley a threatening topic I find it far easier to waffle on about ethics,so the discussions on this thread I find particularly relevant,but Im not seriously trying to tell anyone what to say.

 

hey ho. That's what I would call sophistry.

 

Damn right its sophistry,sophistry is FUN Come on,you cant tell me sophistry isnt fun!Go on,let me have just a little bit of sophistry,pleeeaaase.

[cloud recluse]

Actually,what are you getting at Cat? Are you saying Im just being a longwided pedant,or do you think Im cooking up dodgy excuses for sorcery?

[sean]

regarding scorcery, manifestation, using energy to get what you want etc... You always get what you concentrate on... you manifest whetever it that you're ready for, and what you put your attention on - if you decide to use sigils, your higher self, some lower-astral entities, the I Ching etc. to get what you want, then I see no problem with that, as long as what it is that you want really resonates with your core - and therefore in accordance with your true will

Well said, I think this is a crucial point that alot of anti-magick people don't get. Yes, there is a thrust toward transcendence that is absolutely vital to include on the path. And there is also an equally vital thrust toward immersion and destiny fulfullment. Winn talks about this a lot and has an interesting cosmology that is feeling into this relatively new understanding of nonduality. It's also touched upon in the bodhisattva vow where one vows to put off complete transcendence (absolute freedom) to complete the work of incarnation (love). I think some people mistakenly take a linear, apocalyptic view of the this work of "saving all sentient beings" when really it's an infinite task occuring in the timeless space of emptiness. Our hands get dirty because the Tantric path asks us not to lull ourselves to sleep in the comforting womb of cessation, but to become all that we are ... to perpetually birth the unmanifest in every moment.

 

Magick is just a word to describe the process of focusing your life force to achieve a specific purpose. Like anything there is whole line of maturation to this. When we are kids we want to pray for the best toys at Christmas, a primitive attempt at magick for our own narrow view of self at the time. As one evolves, IMO, they move closer to a postconventional approach to magick, closer to what I think Ian is talking about, where one taps into the life-force as a way of energizing our own highest potential which we then bring into the world.

 

 

Sean

[sean]

There is no way to objectively prove that there is an objective world outside of our subjective experience. But there is also no way to objectively prove that there is not. I think the postmodernists have turned the former into dogma. There is an almost absolute presupposition behind postmodern thought that there is conclusively nothing real out there, and so everything is just up for interpretation. IMO, this is not what the wisdom traditions are teaching. In fact, I think spiritual wisdom is saying the opposite. They are saying that there most certaintly is an absolute truth. There actually is an elephant. Absolutely nothing conclusive can be said about it, including that nothing conclusive can be said about it. And in the sense that it's at least partially untrue that nothing can be said about it, the mystics often tell us it is perfectly safe to think of this absolute truth as absolute Love, Freedom, Emptiness ... all positive, non-nihilist conceptions. I don't think these are just lullabies for the working class. I have yet to find a mystic who tells us that it's just as right to think of God or The Tao as vile and infinitely unwholesome. Furthermore, the mystics tells us that this Absolute can be empirically experienced and even subjectively proven. And the more deeply we embrace That, the more our lives are brought into alignment with reality, and the more we begin to incarnate an order of Truth that is not merely a logical analysis of how to most efficiently acheive a specific amoral outcome. We become intuitive expressions of Divinity that far transcend situational ethics.

 

Really, this isn't any different than positing the existence of a True Will that we align ourselves with. Crowley, Leary, Wilson and other first-wave non-aristotelian Western thinkers made a big deal out of emphasizing that the morality of "True Will" will often not meet preconventional standards. This isn't big news though. The Tantrics have been saying the same thing for over a thousand years. Postconventional ethics are so absolutely relative that room is actually left for the absolute to infuse every cell of it's structure. That they cannot be codified on tablets in the same way as preconventional, fundamentalist ethics simply does not mean that morality doesn't exist.

 

This is my view.

 

Respectfully,

Sean

[cloud recluse]

There is no way to objectively prove that there is an objective world outside of our subjective experience. But there is also no way to objectively prove that there is not. I think the postmodernists have turned the former into dogma. There is an almost absolute presupposition behind postmodern thought that there is conclusively nothing real out there, and so everything is just up for interpretation. IMO, this is not what the wisdom traditions are teaching. In fact, I think spiritual wisdom is saying the opposite. They are saying that there most certaintly is an absolute truth. There actually is an elephant. Absolutely nothing conclusive can be said about it, including that nothing conclusive can be said about it. And in the sense that it's at least partially untrue that nothing can be said about it, the mystics often tell us it is perfectly safe to think of this absolute truth as absolute Love, Freedom, Emptiness ... all positive, non-nihilist conceptions. I don't think these are just lullabies for the working class. I have yet to find a mystic who tells us that it's just as right to think of God or The Tao as vile and infinitely unwholesome. Furthermore, the mystics tells us that this Absolute can be empirically experienced and even subjectively proven. And the more deeply we embrace That, the more our lives are brought into alignment with reality, and the more we beging to incarnate an order of Truth that is not merely a logical analysis of how to most efficiently acheive a specific amoral outcome. We become intuitive expressions of Divinity that far transcend situational ethics.

 

Really, this isn't any different than positing the existence of a True Will that we align ourselves with. Crowley, Leary, Wilson and other first-wave non-aristotelian Western thinkers made a big deal out of emphasizing that the morality of "True Will" will often not meet preconventional standards. This isn't big news though. The Tantrics have been saying the same thing for over a thousand years. Postconventional ethics are so absolutely relative that room is actually left for the absolute to infuse every cell of it's structure. That they cannot be codified on tablets in the same way as preconventional, fundamentalist ethics simply does not mean that morality doesn't exist.

 

This is my view.

 

Respectfully,

Sean

Have you seen Huston Smiths 'Beyond the Post-Modern Mind'.It has direct bearing on what youve said & it might appeal to you.Its from the "Traditionalist" school of metaphysics,& I cant agree with everything they seem to stand for,but the book itself is an excellent collection of chapter length essays on modernist empiricism,the post-modern response to it and the knowledge claims of spirituality.Its a bit of a dry read,but fascinating if your interested in the competeing truth claims of these 3 perspectives,Its overall spiritual epistemology,while framed in very Traditionalist terms,is well worth the effort IMO.

[Ian]

 

 

regarding scorcery, manifestation, using energy to get what you want etc... You always get what you concentrate on... you manifest whetever it that you're ready for, and what you put your attention on - if you decide to use sigils, your higher self, some lower-astral entities, the I Ching etc. to get what you want, then I see no problem with that, as long as what it is that you want really resonates with your core - and therefore in accordance with your true will

 

 

I think this is a really important point and marks where Michael Winn and the buddhists have their fundamental split.

 

Basically : Does your core want anything? Does it have character, uniqueness, or not?

 

If you get to a point where you are identified with, connected with your core, (or life at large, if indeed there's a difference) instead of being identified with little ego issues, and from this connection you are moved to do something, is that your "true nature" or just an impersonal expression of what needed doing in that place at that time?

 

I would claim that we don't know. I would also claim that to find out for sure, we need to get rid of everything we are able to get rid of, and never assume that anything, however much we like it, is our "essential nature"

 

In the meantime I am uneasy about suggesting that the core resonates with anything.

 

Wot you reckon?

[Cameron]

Adyashanti might say allow yourself not to know. Really get into that not knowing state and realizae that is the truth. Then this not knowing state eventually reveals a true understanding.

 

The very act of trying to know or understand something implies a seperate knower to understand that which is known.

 

IMO this is illusion.

 

But it can be fun to a point.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Cameron

[三江源]

.

Edited April 18, 2015 by 三江源

[三江源]

.

Edited April 18, 2015 by 三江源

[sean]

cloud_recluse, thanks for the recommendation, I will check him out.

 

freeform. I appreciate the compliment on my writing. I have been thinking of writing a book. Seems I have a lot to say lately. I'm not confident enough yet in how I would tie my ideas together into a coherent presentation that would be worth anything, but it's definitely in the back of my mind.

 

Ok, so, back to it. Sweeping generalizations to follow. It's not that I think that the postmodern perspective is wrong. I just think it's only relatively right. It's a perception of reality on a very limited bandwidth. Which is kind of ironic considering how radically free thinking postmodernism prides itself to be. It's like postmodernism has discovered this really great, shiny koan. And the koan has potential to lead to true wisdom if approached contemplatively. But more often than not there ends up just being a fixation on all the pretty sparkles. So, in practice, postmodern thinking ends up leading to, IME, a nearly robotic "that is just your perspective" deconstructionism. And with the implicit assumption that this is the only valid way of processing information and communicating. I believe there is the transcendent potential for a *pop* to their koan into an experience of satori, of absolute truth, that postmodernists are just missing the tools to access.

 

What's interesting to me is that I perceive even this position I am articulating as just another bandwidth of perception, ultimately relative, or I might prefer to say, inherently empty. I think there is a full spectrum of truth between these levels of perception. To be honest though, and hopefully not to sound arrogant, I do have a sense that my view transcends and includes yours. Just my sense. And the reason I think this is possible is because I believe that our subjective experience of reality contains as much information to support the assumption that there is a directionality to the universe as it does to support circularity. It's linearity that makes progress, maturation and growth possible on the relative plane. Otherwise manifestation is a futile, circular mistake that we can only hope one day to escape from. And of course we both know the dangers of over insistence on linearity. The real fun comes in with a nondual vision the includes the truth of both. A spiral is not a bad form to express this idea.

 

So I want to pursue this a little and ask you a bunch of questions ... all sincerely and out of curiosity, for you as a person and a well read philosopher, not in any kind of attempt to get into a "proof debate" or anything ... just Tao Bum friend to Tao Bum friend ... Only answer as many or as few as you care to or have time for.

 

What do you think of this "other side" of relativism I am proposing ... this making room for an absolute? How do you apply "absolute relativity" to your own thinking?

 

What is your motivation for, what in my limited view, seems to be a strong strong preference for perceiving phenomenon from the relative rather than anything that leaves room for absolute? Is it that you think this is more correct than another view that it is not more correct?

 

What is the epistemology for your decision making heuristic on what is more correct than something else? For me, concluding that, under nonextraordinary circumstances, feeding a homeless man is a more ethical act than smothering a child to death presupposes the existence of absolutes that, while they may not exist purely in relative form, exist perhaps as Platonic ideas from which I derive a moral gradient.

 

Finally, I am curious how "True" Will fits into your belief. Crowley's conception of True Will was, from my understanding, that if everyone was living their True Will the world would exist in a dynamic harmony free from evil. Evil, in his ethics, is only found when there is restriction around the flow of Thou's will. Do what Thou wilt. Not, do what I, the relative form, wills. Do what Thou, the absolute, is naturally trying to express through incarnation. (It's in this sense that Crowley is like this really strange, almost Catholic theologian).

 

Sorry, I think I am overloading you with questions. I just find this an interesting discussion and something I'm working through right now.

 

 

Sean

[Cameron]

Sean, I notice I can better understand your posts after having a beer.

 

Sorry, carry on with discussions.

[cloud recluse]

 

regarding scorcery, manifestation, using energy to get what you want etc... You always get what you concentrate on... you manifest whetever it that you're ready for, and what you put your attention on - if you decide to use sigils, your higher self, some lower-astral entities, the I Ching etc. to get what you want, then I see no problem with that, as long as what it is that you want really resonates with your core - and therefore in accordance with your true will

Exactly! and its that flowing core,'"empty" of rigid self-images,that becomes the Daoists final source of ethical direction,ideally to the point where ethics no longer have to be dwelt upon, much as personal will ideally becomes so refined & congruent with the core that 'self' itself can be 'forgotten'', no longer requiring deliberate attention.Of course,thats the ideal,& its an ideal easily twisted,thus the use of an ethical structure while core congruence is still maturing.You dont want to load up on remorse at a deep level & have it pounce upon you as you start to enter that level later on down the track.Its not fear of vengeful judgement Im talking about,but rather the discovery that you have blindly polluted your own inner condition. This all presupposes there is some'Truth',some objective aspect,to the human condition.It presupposes something deeper than social constructs.It is not simply an absence left behind after postmodernist deconstruction,but language can only orient you towards it,not contain it. Anyhow,Ive probably contradicted myself & my visions getting blurry.I dont know if any of this makes sense so Im going to bed !! Regards,Cloud

[cloud recluse]

 

Basically : Does your core want anything? Does it have character, uniqueness, or not?

...If you get to a point where you are identified with, connected with your core, (or life at large, if indeed there's a difference) instead of being identified with little ego issues, and from this connection you are moved to do something, is that your "true nature" or just an impersonal expression of what needed doing in that place at that time?

....I am uneasy about suggesting that the core resonates with anything.

 

My experience of the core is that it doesnt "want" in the deficient "I need x to complete me" sense,and I have to relax those compulsions before I experience the core.But once there,the effortless abundance of the core simply expresses itself in whatever situation is arising.The core is often felt in my body ,not as an individual "soul",but as a kind of personal gateway to something larger.Its qualities change & flow in any given moment ,due to its alignment with the Impersonal,but it is the change & flow of Personal qualities & actions.Little ego issues are the discordant compulsions that assume defficiency,& thus obscure core impulses with their neurophysiological noise. Sometimes core experince is quiet,sometimes it is passionate.It requires emptiness to first perceive it,but also the ability to then embody it in action,to not cling to formlessness.Thats my experince of it sofar,the empty core of my bodymind inspiring an effortless,fearless kind of passion for life,except when I fuck it all up with my numerous fears. So,what do you other guys mean by "Core"? Anything like this? Regards,Cloud.

[sean]

I think if enough people stopped thinking in terms of this Platonic/Aristotelian logic... where the grass has an essence of greenness... and started including themselves in their observations, a lot more sanity would come about. But we're not 'most people' - we're a very niche group who are interested in both spirituality and philosophy...

I think the majority of the world is probably in a fundamentalist mindset that is very much in need of recognizing what you might say is the intrinsic relativity to any perceptual position. It's a painful painful stage of development to grow out of. Fundamentalism of any sort, if you think about it, is actually a kind of idolatry. It's the worship of a superficial, frozen image as if it were Complete Truth.

 

So it's obvious that a fixation on certainty is unhealthy, but, to me at least, it's also obvious how uncertainty and confusion can be equally unhealthy fixations. Uncertainty and confusion can be a great place to escape when you want to avoid making tough decisions. It's also a convenient way to avoid having to believe in anything. Beliefs often requires us to have the courage to stand up for our perception of the truth in the face of painful consequences. Think of the lone man in front of the tank in Tiananmen square. Just think of the passion and conviction of this man. Think how easily this man could have just thought, "Hmmm, do I really have it so bad I should risk my life? This is really confusing". Governments do thrive on keeping people confused and uncertain because it can prevent activism.

 

The absolute is just a figment of the relative's imagination.

And also the relative's imagination is just a figment of the Absolute.

 

I think both should be held in our hearts and minds equally. And we can hold both even while we live in the world with our relative personalities and conditioned preferences and karma that make us more suited and even compelled to favor "one side" of the expression.

 

The world is Illusory;

Brahman alone is real;

Brahman is the world.

 

The sense in which I meant that my map may be more inclusive than yours, is that it seems that your tendency is to strongly favor the first line of this koan, rarely speak of the second, and frequently downplay and even argue against the third.

 

Another way of saying the same thing, in my own much less poetic words, might be:

 

The map is not the territory. The closer one looks at the territory, the less and less one can say anything with absolute certainty about the territory. By surrendering to uncertainty completely, one can experience the Absolute within which all maps and territories arise. The Absolute alone is the territory. The territory is the map.

 

Of course this is another map, but I think it points to an experience. What do you think? I'm interested in your thoughts, this is a great conversation. I think philosophical inquiry like this can be a form of Jnana Yoga, a practice in itself, when approached contemplatively btw.

 

 

Cheers,

Sean

[sean]

My experience of the core is that it doesnt "want" in the deficient "I need x to complete me" sense,and I have to relax those compulsions before I experience the core.But once there,the effortless abundance of the core simply expresses itself in whatever situation is arising.The core is often felt in my body ,not as an individual "soul",but as a kind of personal gateway to something larger.Its qualities change & flow in any given moment ,due to its alignment with the Impersonal,but it is the change & flow of Personal qualities & actions.Little ego issues are the discordant compulsions that assume defficiency,& thus obscure core impulses with their neurophysiological noise. Sometimes core experince is quiet,sometimes it is passionate.It requires emptiness to first perceive it,but also the ability to then embody it in action,to not cling to formlessness.Thats my experince of it sofar,the empty core of my bodymind inspiring an effortless,fearless kind of passion for life,except when I fuck it all up with my numerous fears. So,what do you other guys mean by "Core"? Anything like this? Regards,Cloud.

Great great post cloud_recluse.

 

I have a similar experience of my "core", inner silent bliss, emptiness ... whatever we want to call it. My experience is that it is far far far from being a kind of nihilistic void.

 

One way I think of emptiness is like the wetness of water in the ocean. Dipping into our core is like a wave quietly reflecting on it's nature as being wet. The wave doesn't "get" wet. It just is wet. And so is the whole ocean. And none of the waves or even the stillness of the deep is any wetter than any other part of the ocean. Wetness is just an intrinsic quality of the substance of water's being.

 

Then I also think of how wetness is not separate from either the movement or stillness of the ocean. Emptiness is nondual with the pulse of life it contains and interpenetrates. So emptiness actually moves with life. It's not something separate we can point out and label and say, "ok here is where emptiness, the space of absolute beyond qualities lives. And then over here is manifestation". Emptiness literally is form. Our core is this whole world, our pain, sour milk, paychecks, parents, pocket lint, government, stars, and bad dreams. This is why engaging in the world is alchemy ... spiritual communion. And I think it's in this sense we can try to discuss qualities of emptiness, by perceiving how and guessing why emptiness unfolds holographically as manifestation.

 

In my own view I think emptiness breathes manifestation as an act of infinite, irrepressible falling in Love.

 

Sean

[Ian]

Heard an interview with Eckhart Tolle recently.

 

He was being pressed to say whether the world we experience is real or not.

 

He finally said "It is a temporary manifestation of the real"

 

He said it real nice.

[Lozen]

 

Agreed... getting rid of the patterns I constantly run is one of my aims at this time... The first step is to notice these patterns in others, and then start noticing them in yourself (hard work - because as you say sometimes these patterns are very pleasant, and give us a lot of comfort and dont want to be noticed as patterns). Jerry Stocking is, for me, the authority on this. As I'm in the process of noticing my patterns, I find it helpful when people show me them (either intentionally or more usually unintentionally) - however it seems that when I bring out other people's patterns, and highlight them to the person, they tend to get rather defensive and offended...

 

 

Hope this doesn't throw a wrench into things, freeform, but I was thinking about this since I had this little nagging feeling that I might be one of the people you were referring to about people getting defensive/offended when you bring out other people's patterns.

 

I was thinking about this because I think there's a distinct difference in between when I get defensive/offended when being told my patterns (which I know I do at times), and getting defensive/offended when people try to put me in boxes I don't belong in.

 

For example, today I was speaking to this really amazing musician at open mic who writes mostly religious (Christian) music. He's definitely got something going on--his aura... he seemed so grounded when he was playing as opposed to most space case musicians, and you could tell there was more going on than just him playing. And when I talked to him afterwards about the light, about being a tube or a vessel and letting it flow through you, he basically tried to convert me to Christianity. ("I'm not trying to shove things down your throat, but let me tell you about how the light and surrender you experience is just a deception, and the only true light is through Jesus. etc. blah blah blah.") I basically shut down at that point, wished him a good night, and walked away. Is this because he's pointing out my patterns? Or is it because he is trying to stuff me (along with the rest of humanity, or those who don't agree with him anyway) into a little box? Because I could go blue in the face explaining to him that I've tried Christianity and it didn't work for me, that I physically feel tingling sensations in my crown and third eye chakras at all times now and have to spend an hour a day paying attention to my feet because the life force is flowing through me so strongly, etc. etc. and he wouldn't hear me. And I think that's how I felt when you were (without even having ever met me or spent time with me to get to know me in person, and without me even really asking for your opinion) telling me that my tire is flat and really what I need to do is just abandon my silly, illogical beliefs in good and evil and follow my true will. I could go blue in the face explaining to you times in my life and on my path that I didn't believe in good and evil, and what the outcome was, and how what I'm doing now is finally getting the results I am looking for, and on and on and on, and it wouldn't have any effect whatsoever, because you'd go blue in the face explaining to me that what I think is helping me is keeping me trapped, and you've noticed for a long time that my tire is flat, and I am anti-nature and not a real Taoist, and by believing in good and evil I'm not being "spiritual" and you will claim that your own beliefs are "spirituality" and not just a different form of it than mine is, and on and on...

 

It's kind of like an analogy someone else wrote about elsewhere, I'm adapting this so it is my own. If I know (I know!!) that I am purple, and somebody keeps insisting to me that I am red, tries really hard to make me see that I am red and force me to accept it, I could really really try to show them that I'm not red (and risk becoming red in the process), or I could just think, "No, you're color blind. I'm purple," ignore them and move on.

 

I think it's really hard to judge other people... I mean some things are obvious... Like I have a friend who would keep losing jobs, apartments, relationships, and it seemed very obvious to me that he was never taking responsibility for his choices that led to these things, he acted like they were happening to him and he was a poor helpless victim, and when I tried to point this out to him, he;d get defensive and feel attacked. (And I had to remember not to give him my opinion unless he asked me for it, and not to be attached to seeing results.) Of course he figured it out later and changed, which was good.

 

On the other hand, I had a friend who was dating a drug addict, and I told her he was abusive, and she saw it too, but she knew in her heart she had to stick with him anyway, and he is recovered now years later, and they are still together. So I could have gone blue in the face to her about how she deserved better, and he was a stupid abusive fuck, and you can't love a person and love a drug one always has to win out, and on and on, but to listen to me would have gone against her intuition, and really she was the only one who knew what she should do, and there is more than one path, and one should let their heart not their logic or their friends or strangers; opinions guide their choices anyway.

 

I am totally rambling, and I hope you don't take offense to me comparing you to the born-again (and really talented musician!!) that I met. I have noticed in the past times when I've been defensive/offended when people told me things I really needed to hear, but I just don't think this is one of them.

 

Anyways, that's it for now...

Edited April 7, 2006 by Lozen

[Lozen]

And one more thing--I have to say that relativism just feels so fundamentalist to me. You'd think that relativism would ALLOW for ALL belief systems (including fundamentalism) but instead the majority of relativists insist that their way is the only way and everyone else is misguided and lost. Which renders the whole argument moot as far as I'm concerned--if everything is relative and everyone who doesn't believe so is lost according to relativists, and there are absolutes and relativists are lost according to "fundamentalists" (if you have to call them that), then at least the fundamentalists have a system that is consistent!!

 

Also the belief that kids are more important than adults isn't born in a vaccuum-- it is a tribal belief that binds the world together in some ways--adults protect kids, so that kids can become adults and preserve the tribe, women are protected so they can give birth to children, and on and on. Of course it is not the only belief, there are many others in history, such as tribes that killed the elderly and babies that looked like they wouldn't survive, one would have to look at their GOALS and priorities and pick actions that preserve those as best as possible... and of course throw a good dose of intuition along with the logic involved, etc. and of course be in the process of a lifelong spiritual transformation that will get you into and out of trouble in a way that science, intuition, logic or words could not explain... lol... okay, i drank too much coffee....

[Ian]

.... that I physically feel tingling sensations in my crown and third eye chakras at all times now and have to spend an hour a day paying attention to my feet because the life force is flowing through me so strongly...

 

Have you tried a form of lotus walking? Just feeling the contact of your feet on the ground with each step, and relaxing your body as much as you can? Whatever the mind says, say "shut up, I'm busy with my feet". Likewise the senses.

 

Not ideal in traffic, as you can stumble like a drunk. But very useful.

[cloud recluse]

..... engaging in the world is alchemy ... spiritual communion. And I think it's in this sense we can try to discuss qualities of emptiness, by perceiving how and guessing why emptiness unfolds holographically as manifestation.

 

In my own view I think emptiness breathes manifestation as an act of infinite, irrepressible falling in Love.

 

Sean

Exactly ! Love ! Thanx for pointing that out Sean,coz thats where the ethical question kicks in ,ethics that reflect that love,ethics that are congruent with that force. So in those times when I lose awareness of that effortless,abundant love,when I no longer feel it directly as I begin to recoil from empty manifeststion into "safer/easier" masks,ethics can snap me awake to where Im at,expose what Im locking myself into.Ethics may not constitute core awareness in themselves,but they stop me damaging the world around me & causing stupid,needless misery.Ethics call me back to a Source greater than themselves,Love,and that reorienting function (or lack of it) allows me to evaluate any particular ethical code.Ethics as a living Yoga,not a dead weight of Thou Shalt Nots. Regards,Cloud.

[Cameron]

Since we are really going deep here I wonder if anyone wants to address the flip side of the coin of morality. Sure we are all on "The path" and following a so called spiritual way but what about people not following the path. Does going outside the borders of percieved ethical action and morality lead to suffering? If so, why is this?

 

I more or less take the Taoist and zen view that everything is connected so when you have negative thoughts or do "bad" things this causes a kind of invisible energy that has an effect on your karma.

 

But is this just more hocus pocus or do we we really feel how powerfully we can effect eachother and the world? Have you ever found engaging in "unethical" action caused your life to be damaged spiritually or in other ways?

 

Is there room in spiritual practice for unethical or morally corrupt action or does this absolutely have to be cleared up first before a person can have an enlightenment experience or connection to the Tao etc.

 

Pretty wide open just say what you feel without judgement.

[Lozen]

Have you tried a form of lotus walking? Just feeling the contact of your feet on the ground with each step, and relaxing your body as much as you can? Whatever the mind says, say "shut up, I'm busy with my feet". Likewise the senses.

 

Not ideal in traffic, as you can stumble like a drunk. But very useful.

 

I suppose that is what I'm doing... the healer I'm working with has me focusing on my feet whenever I go to the gym and walk around. Not focus on them, actually, just be aware of them.

 

And I've noticed that the more I open up, spiritually, the less these chakras feel like they hurt... sort of like trying to squeeze light from a knotted tube, so you unknot the tube. Or something.

[freeform]

.

Edited December 18, 2019 by freeform

[sean]

Ethics as a living Yoga,not a dead weight of Thou Shalt Nots.

YES! Exactly, exactly! Ethics as a living Yoga. Perfect.

 

I more or less take the Taoist and zen view that everything is connected so when you have negative thoughts or do "bad" things this causes a kind of invisible energy that has an effect on your karma.

 

But is this just more hocus pocus or do we we really feel how powerfully we can effect eachother and the world? Have you ever found engaging in "unethical" action caused your life to be damaged spiritually or in other ways?

 

Is there room in spiritual practice for unethical or morally corrupt action or does this absolutely have to be cleared up first before a person can have an enlightenment experience or connection to the Tao etc.

I think we can empirically validate a very real cause and effect relationship with various actions and their effects on our minds and hearts. This is what makes a daily meditation practice for me so so important because I get to tune in, twice a day, with the state of my mind and how it is being influenced by my decisions. In my own practice I have noticed what I might describe as a dense, thick mud swirling through my perception ... full of incessantly loud babbling of thoughts ... and this mud occurs in my mind when I act in various selfish or egotistical ways ... But it makes it's entrance subtly enough at first that I wouldn't notice unless I was tuning in through quiet, reflective meditation to really deeply feel how this mud occludes the bliss of truth and silence in my being, and how it tries to build on it's momentum to ultimately really cut me off from any common sense in my behavior. This is why I really resonant with the way Yogani describes meditation as a process of cleaning mud off a window. Yoga really is about this. Cleaning mud off your window so that the Light of Being can shine more clearly into the world. Nondual teachers that strongly emphasize the absolute, like Adyashanti, Eckhart Tolle and Gangaji ... they tend to focus more on the fact that, on the deepest deepest level, we already are Light. Truth is what holds (and is) both "light and mud". And, maybe paradoxically, I think it's actually this nondual state they are pointing to that (at least appears) to clean the mud of our windows in our Yoga in the world of form.

 

Sean