To: K-list
Recieved: 2000/01/31 12:05
Subject: [K-list] Patanjali and evil
From: Amanda Erhart
On 2000/01/31 12:05, Amanda Erhart posted thus to the K-list:
From: "Amanda Erhart" <mumblecatATnospamangelfire.com>
>Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:11:05 EST
> From: MHortlingATnospamaol.com
>Subject: Patanjali & evil
>
>This applies to all the rules: non-violence isn't required as the "right"
>attitude to have if one wants to be a yogi (or reach heaven, or avoid hell or
>whatever...), but rather because agressive emotions cloud the mind and veil
>the inner reality.
>
>The innermost reality being that there is no "other" to be agressive towards,
>there is no woman (or man) to be chased, there is no outer object to be
>desired. Seen from the ultimate vantage point (everybody's innermost state),
>all the emotions, objects, thoughts, people, take place as an ongoing stream
>of vibrations or waves within the universal mind of the non-dual Self.
:)) Well said, Michael.
The problem with notions such as "good"
and "evil" are (among a few) that these are
points of view only and remove us from the
original source, as well as clouding the mind
in old antipathies.
In being, one can only be, without notions of
how it is perceived.
Kundalini may bring us closer to this state of
pure being, after long walks up the spiral
pathway, coming closer and closer to real
being, one's original nature as the Zen
Buddhists call it.
On the way, behavior of the subject may seem
erratic, dangerous and even "evil" to other
ppl, as being oneself fully depends a fearlessness
and especially fearlessness of being ostracized.
As Patanjali wrote, though, this is not
tantamount with having no responsibility or
a notion of the laws of society.
As Patanjali puts it:
"The Yogi is not of the world, yet in it".
Or like you said:
>Of course this doesn't mean one shouldn't be a >nice person doing nice things
:)
>I guess that suffering and the "friction" involved in just living eventually
>opens the hearts and fosters compassion. Then ideally, maybe one doesn't even
>have to think about whether acts or attitudes are morally right or wrong -
>compassion and goodness and right action just happen ?
I have been wondering about the same thing,
lately and this is why I drop a few lines
in re.
I realy do believe in the transcendence of
good and evil, that along the way, one does
become "beyond good and evil", nevertheless
with the many scary associations a line like that
brings.
Again, as I see it, this means for practical
reasons one is not above responsibility
or the judicial laws, one is merely beyond the
worries and concerns of everyday ppl of
having to conform to the given norms
(whether it be fashion, life style, economy,
religion, national identity,
fear of illness and death etc etc ).
And most important of all, one is beyond the
repercussions that the mind and the identity
(not sure which enitity to blame that on)
makes on itself in re all sorts of things,
condensed in the old notions of
"I am not worthy", "I am a bad person",
"I do not deserve this" etc etc.
And in the end, hopefully,
when all ego attachments and all
desires for pleasure of the self and
mind,
one reaches such a
state as you mention, where the needs of others
are automatically and without thinking seen
to, with no expectations of reward, merely
because being is doing in these stituations.
:) I hope.
Best regards,
Amanda.
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds. Get rates as low as 0.0 percent
Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW.
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative5CL ">Click Here</a>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.