To: K-list
Recieved: 2003/04/18 04:09
Subject: Re: [K-list] Evil
From: mundane zen
On 2003/04/18 04:09, mundane zen posted thus to the K-list:
Dear Danijel and List,
This is turning into an interesting discussion.
>>>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.
That's a rather glib and highly questionable description of Buddhists and
their motivation.
>However, the buddhists believe in dharma, the absolute law of
>rightness, therefore believing there to be the absolute criterion of
>judgment.
To characterize the Dharma as absolute law is inaccurate.
"All dharmas are marked with emptiness,
They do not appear or disappear,
Are not tainted or pure,
Do not increase or decrease."
-- The Heart Sutra
>... 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.
"They don't get to see who's behind it, but when they do..." Isn't that a
contradiction? Practice (meditation) does usually lead to experiences of
enlightenment, but there are degrees, partial, full, etc., and it's usually
not permanent. And yes, during the experience you become the Buddha. You
experience your true nature, the ultimate reality, God, spirit, whatever you
want to call it. The point is, you don't need to believe in God or call
what you experience God. It's only necessary to have faith that practice
will eventually yield results.
>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.
Evil is obviously subjective, as it takes a subject to judge something to be
good or evil. With regard to absolute evil, how is this possible? How can
there be evil without it being relative to some effect on a living person?
>>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.
I'm not suggesting that the word God IS God. I'm just trying to figure out
your particular definition. Saying that God is absolute goodness doesn't
get us very far either, because good and evil require a subjective judgment
and a subjective experience.
>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 you make positive then you make negative. Thus you reduce this
fundamental reality by half.
>>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.
Ok, I'll buy that. But this seems to contradict what you said above. Are
you perhaps saying that God is absolute good, but can perceive absolute
evil? That I don't buy. It's limiting.
>>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.
The whole problem with this line of reasoning is that you're trying to
objectify the transcendental -- treating a property of the whole as if it
were one of its constituent parts. This creates a tangled hierarchy. While
God can be experienced subjectively, as spirit or the true Self in all of
us, this does not mean that God can be turned into a separate object. To do
so would be to create an image of God, and thus be a form of idolatry.
>>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.
I fail to see how such a powerful force could be distinguished as a separate
entity, independent of the spirit of God, by mere humans.
>I never said that the relative attitudes are no good. I said that the
>relativistic attitudes are no good. There is a big difference.
Relativistic and relative are from the same root word. I don't see how
there can be a big difference.
>A relative attitude has a point of reference, and a relativistic
>attitude has none.
In physics, relativistic means no ABSOLUTE frame of reference, not NO frame
of reference. When you use the Lorentz transformation equations you need to
define the x, y, and z coordinate vectors of two frames of reference. This
differs from the old cartesian system (Newtonian, non-relativist) in which
the second coordinate values were assumed to be zero, and thus unnecessary.
>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.
All you need to do is define the point on the ground (the second coordinate
system relative to the plane's coordinates) to obtain the answer.
>>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.
I think this relativistic attitude you describe is dead on. In order to
judge something good and evil, you need to put it into context. You need to
define two frames of reference. For example, is murder absolutely wrong?
Considering all the suffering that occurred in WW II, would it have been
wrong to murder Hitler in 1938?
ken
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
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.