Re: Luther and wu wei
Posted by Butcho on 4/10/2010, 10:39 pm, in reply to "Re: Luther and wu wei"
: --Previous Message-
: rat & friends,
: It is a sin what has been said about sin
: here. No absolutes indeed. What a cop out.
: Absolute and relative are relative terms.
: Absolute relativity. Word games. Pure and
: simple. Word games.
: If one wants to really say something then
: one must either get past word games or use
: them instead of being used by them.
: You and others say there is no right or
: wrong as though right and wrong must be
: absolute in order for there to be right or
: wrong. Such a high standard is useful for
: the hedonist I suppose. But it is not the
: middle way. Not by a long shot. It is an
: extreme. No sin indeed. No good either. No
: bad. Just this... Then why bother to use
: words at all?
: If we are going to use words we might as
: well try to have some integrity rather than
: simply using them as an escape hatch. As a
: means to our own selfish ends.
: The next thing you are going to say is that
: it doesn't matter what we do. That causation
: is an illusion. Right. Silly monkeys. Purist
: Advaita balderdash.
: From now on I will give you three wrongs in
: the morning and four rights in the
: Butcho, I was speaking of sin, not the
: morals and ethics of right and wrong. They
: really aren't the same. Sin is defined by
: the reigning religious culture. Ours is
: Judeo-Christian, Muslims have an entirely
: different one, a native tribe in Borneo
: Right and wrong are studied by ethicists.
: Situation Ethics recognizes right &
: wrong to be not absolute, but situational.
: It's wrong to steal, we know that, wrong to
: steal bread for your starving child? So many
: To follow what we consider the most right
: not out of fear of punishment or desire for
: reward is Integrity. Virtue. Te. But, of
: course what's good for me, an antibiotic, is
: not good for the bacteria it kills. That's
: why Zhuang Tzu speaks or no right or wrong
: in the absolute universal sense. It only
: determines on the micro, subjective level.
: I like Isabeau's "missing the
: mark". Even doing the best we can with
: what we know, we can miss the mark. No sin
: imo, of course.
I respectfully disagree.
When you say "entirely different one" I must for the most part disagree.
People have pretty much the same sense of justice everywhere. Our differences tend to be superficial for the most part. Those things that are drastically different are the exception, not the rule.
Sometimes it seems to me that some think the only sin is to say that there is no sin.
By sin one thing I mean is anything that alienates one part of our being from the rest of our being. Anything that causes us to be fragmented keeps us from being our true selves. It does no good to deny an unsavory aspect of being. It is only through acceptance of our various parts that we can become what we are. We cannot become what we are not. In becoming what we are, in accepting all parts of our being, then and only then are we actually in a position where we can fundamentally change.
The sage is a gestalt therapist. Not a get out of jail card. Ours is not a fixed reality. Existence is dynamic. More verb than noun. More process than structure. Those that say there is nothing to do are living in denial. They are denying the alienated aspects of their own being. We all have alienated aspects. We all do things contrary to the best interests of the whole of our being. There is always something to do, even sitting down and shutting up is something to do.
I do not practice to become enlightened. I practice because I am enlightened.
Message Thread | Skip to this response ↓|