To: K-list
Recieved: 2003/04/17 22:45
Subject: Re: [K-list] Evil
From: Danijel Turina
On 2003/04/17 22:45, Danijel Turina posted thus to the K-list:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
At 18:07 17.4.2003 -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. However, the
buddhists believe in dharma, the absolute law of rightness, therefore
believing there to be the absolute criterion of judgment. Also, they
believe in good and evil, beliving evil to be a binding force, while
the good has a liberating effect, being based on compassion. 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.
>>The fact that the evil is relative bears little relevance, since a
>>brick is relative too, and I wouldn't want one to hit me in the
>>head.
>
>How does it follow that since we live in a world where everything is
> relative, the fact that evil is relative is irrelevant?
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.
>>As I said, this marker exists, in the absolute sense, and it is
>>God. Every single thing is good in a degree to which it manifests
>>God or helps reach God, and it is evil to a degree in which it
>>hinders God's manifestation or prevents people to feel the Divine
>>qualities. In
>>this way, we can establish the point of reference.
>
>
>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.
>Are you using the same definition as I am, as a Hindu,
>Muslim, Christian, ancient Greek, Hottentot, etc. would?
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 one enters the state of Divine vision, and from that perspective
>>observes a certain situation, he will know the absolute truth of
>>this situation. However, it might be extremely difficult to map
>>this truth into the human concepts.
>
>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.
>>That is irrelevant. What matters is what it is compared to the
>>absolute point of reference. If an evil person commits an evil
>>deed, he will probably think he did good. However, from the
>>absolute
>>perspective, he did and is evil.
>
>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.
>>I repeat, it doesn't even matter whether we can tell for sure
>>whether something is or is not evil. What matters is that evil
>>exists and it can be known as such. If we can't know it, some angel
>>probably can.
>
>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.
>>The fact that evil exists, doesn't even mean that we are supposed
>>to dwell on it; it would be quite sufficient to dwell on God, to
>>defeat evil. However, I don't really like the relativistic
>>attitudes. Those things usually end with "nothing really matters,
>>nothing is really important" attitudes.
>
>
>So, we live in a world where everything is relative, but relative
>attitudes are no good.
I never said that the relative attitudes are no good. I said that the
relativistic attitudes are no good. There is a big difference. A
relative attitude has a point of reference, and a relativistic
attitude has none. A relativistic attitude says that good and evil do
not exist, that it is all the same, that it all depends on
perspective and opinions. An example of a relative attitude would be
that an airplane flies at an altitude of 20000ft (relative to the
ground). An absolute value of the airplane's height cannot be given,
for there is no known absolute coordinate system.
A relativistic attitude would be that the altitude on which the plane
flies cannot be known, for altitude is merely a matter of opinion -
maybe it's 20ft, maybe it's 20000ft.
>This doesn't follow. And how do relativistic attitudes lead
>to the idea that nothing really matters?
Denying the existence of a point of reference, no measurement has
value.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPp8uf1PBuvzR3sznEQKOvgCdFS0g+23ufNHH1Th/WVMFRwST2cMAoJGj
FZ1AOb26YjBHMT24xgnHx6rj
=Q3Ts
-----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.