Diiogenes,
We've been writing quite a lot here, and I hope we can find ways to hear each other as well as we are both expressing ourselves.
So you believe that karma philosophy, with its concept of universal justice, is the foundation for moral understanding and behavior, in the absence of which one is morally vulnerable?
So this understanding gives you a perspective that goes beyond seeing the person and circumstances, beyond what an agyani person might be able to offer?
This seems to come back to what you initially wrote, that karma is the cornerstone of moral behavior for you, that you ignore at your own peril. And by extension, perhaps for people of all stripes and colors.
This part is paradoxical for me ... has been and continues to be. If karma is a law of return for each act, and each bears responsibility for all that befalls them, then it appears to me that there is no injustice. Which connects with the BK practice of seeing all human activity as a distant drama. I, personally, do not enjoy theater when I am detached, but when I am engaged, laughing and crying and even suffering with those I see on stage.
The BK tradition, however, is one of detachment, as we hear pretty much in every single Sakar Murli. The typical example given is that of a doctor who can help people more if she can handle the sight of blood. As a BK I aspired to help others as a kind of spiritual doctor. Fit in perfectly with the "helper" mentality in my own family, while distancing me from friendship and intimacy, which are based on equality rather than a helper relationship.
I am not speaking about Dadi Janki here, but my own "digestion" of this concept. The typical explanation here, as I recall it, is "this knowledge is like a knife, it's up to you to use it properly."
There is something magical about being able to be detached in that situation, as a Mexican BK Brother told me he felt during the huge Mexico City earthquake, or as I myself did, having dental drilling and filling without anaesthetic. I've written elsewhere that this ability is secondary in my life now to the issue of my ability and disability to connect with others.[/quote]
I am not conflicted, Diiogenes, in that at this stage in my life I experience my moral strength (to the extent I have it) to rest on a different foundation than my cerebral apprehension of the world and the thoughts that I tell myself. Some inner embodied something ... let's call it "backbone" that is more like a feeling of support rather than a particular mindset.
Wow, such a strong statement! I don't really know what to say ... kind of harks back to BK-defined soul consciousness. If you know who you are--some kind of cognitive and emotional experience--you can be free of suffering, or at least settle it.
If non-BKs can be as wise as BKs, then what exclusive benefits can BKs claim to offer? If these benefits are not exclusive, how can BKs at the present time consider themselves to be the chosen ones, ancestors, the roots and foundation of the entire world civilization? You don't have to answer that ... It seems we both agree that the BKs, as a group, have not been universally liberated by the esoteric knowledge revealed through the BK founder.
Regards,
We've been writing quite a lot here, and I hope we can find ways to hear each other as well as we are both expressing ourselves.
Joel wrote:If you look over what I wrote, I said that "for myself, I examine my participation, conscious or unconscious, in all that befalls me." Not exactly a "state of denial" as far as I can tell. I can take responsibility for myself, as many people in the world do, without considering whether "as you sow, so shall you reap" is a universal law.
Diiogenes wrote:The point of understanding it as a unversal law is that it forms a cornerstone of moral understanding and behaviour for the individual, something they can build on and which strengthens their being. Without its acceptance behaviour and morality easily become compromised, despite the good intentions of the self.
So you believe that karma philosophy, with its concept of universal justice, is the foundation for moral understanding and behavior, in the absence of which one is morally vulnerable?
Joel wrote:What I think is the difference between your position (if that is the right word) and mine, is that I have no handy explanation for the underlying cause if something bad happens to someone. It it remains a mystery to my limited eyes.
Diiogenes wrote:I don't accept it because it provides any handy explanation. I accept it because I understand it to be true, and it's proven in my own life experiences. I find it valuable to gain insights into the workings of the world and karma. It's by this understanding I can become truly useful when circumstances arise, as against just being a good samaritan with good intentions.
So this understanding gives you a perspective that goes beyond seeing the person and circumstances, beyond what an agyani person might be able to offer?
Diiogenes wrote:By knowing the universal laws I am at least informed in the choices I make. When I choose to ignore them I bring about my own punishment.
This seems to come back to what you initially wrote, that karma is the cornerstone of moral behavior for you, that you ignore at your own peril. And by extension, perhaps for people of all stripes and colors.
Joel wrote:"What about earthquakes? What about epidemics? What about when an airplane crashes" I had asked Jagdish Chander. His answer was simple: "people who commit the same crime are in the same jail." That is what I mean about "overarching philosophy." Something that seeks to explain everything, and brooks no departures. I think I am justified in using boldface here to emphasize that if you believe something like this, then you will never, ever see injustice because you believe it cannot exist, or that there is always some explanation.
Diiogenes wrote:This is where your thinking is wrong, Joel. Truly understanding this philosophy develops your capacity for compassion, so seeing injustice much more clearly.
This part is paradoxical for me ... has been and continues to be. If karma is a law of return for each act, and each bears responsibility for all that befalls them, then it appears to me that there is no injustice. Which connects with the BK practice of seeing all human activity as a distant drama. I, personally, do not enjoy theater when I am detached, but when I am engaged, laughing and crying and even suffering with those I see on stage.
The BK tradition, however, is one of detachment, as we hear pretty much in every single Sakar Murli. The typical example given is that of a doctor who can help people more if she can handle the sight of blood. As a BK I aspired to help others as a kind of spiritual doctor. Fit in perfectly with the "helper" mentality in my own family, while distancing me from friendship and intimacy, which are based on equality rather than a helper relationship.
Joel wrote:The more I get to know people who are homeless, impoverished, diseased, persecuted, etc., the more I discover that they are not dramatically different than I am. I find no grounds to conclude that they have done bad to deserve their fate, and that I have done good to deserve my relatively comfortable existence. God may know that what you say is true. As an ordinary person, I don't see anything in those people that I can judge.
Diiogenes wrote:I did not get any impression Dadi Janki was passing any judgement in her comment. I don't feel any need to judge people. I consider less fortunate than me for whatever reason. Understanding why they might be in their situation is a completely different thing. It's not a case of good and bad, but circumstance that they, or I, have arrived at where we are.
I am not speaking about Dadi Janki here, but my own "digestion" of this concept. The typical explanation here, as I recall it, is "this knowledge is like a knife, it's up to you to use it properly."
Joel wrote:I think that's what rubs me the wrong way about this purported universality of karma: If something bad happens to you, you must have done something wrong, because there is no suffering without cause. To me this smells of judgment.
Diiogenes wrote:There is no suffering without cause, as their is no success without effort. If something 'bad' happens to you it will be because, wittingly or unwittingly, you've created the opportunity for it to occur and have a negative effect on you. In about my second year in Gyan I was driving a colleague to rehearsals when we were sideswiped by a truck (my side of the car). My colleague was hysterical while the event was occuring. Not for a moment did I feel in danger or disturbed. My colleague was unable to function for most of the day. I relate this to illustrate something 'bad' happening, one person suffered, the other did not. It was also a good lesson in the power of Yoga and detachment for me.
There is something magical about being able to be detached in that situation, as a Mexican BK Brother told me he felt during the huge Mexico City earthquake, or as I myself did, having dental drilling and filling without anaesthetic. I've written elsewhere that this ability is secondary in my life now to the issue of my ability and disability to connect with others.[/quote]
Joel wrote:I am unable to distinguish this from the callous self-righteousness of those who would tell a rape victim (or secretly aside to themselves), "you must have brought it on yourself."
Diiogenes wrote:It sounds like you've created an obstacle of conflict and struggle for yourself over the issue. It's good you're thinking about these things though.
I am not conflicted, Diiogenes, in that at this stage in my life I experience my moral strength (to the extent I have it) to rest on a different foundation than my cerebral apprehension of the world and the thoughts that I tell myself. Some inner embodied something ... let's call it "backbone" that is more like a feeling of support rather than a particular mindset.
Diiogenes wrote:Suffering is born of ignorance, and the behaviour and attitudes that develop from that ignorance.
Wow, such a strong statement! I don't really know what to say ... kind of harks back to BK-defined soul consciousness. If you know who you are--some kind of cognitive and emotional experience--you can be free of suffering, or at least settle it.
Joel wrote:I see no less suffering among BKs, or Buddhists, or Christians.
Diiogenes wrote:I don't know many Buddhists. The Christians I know lead fruitful, purposeful lives. But I saw less suffering through ignorance among BKs than any group, religion or community pursuing spiritual practice.
Joel wrote:I left the BKs after an extensive personal survey showed me that many people who had no such philosophical orientation were at least as wise, mature, creative and fulfilled as my BK family members.
Diiogenes wrote:I don't disagree with you there. I had a similar reason for choosing to disengage from BK lifestyle as well. I found I was more comfortable working with other limitations than within the Brahmin heirachy constipation point.
If non-BKs can be as wise as BKs, then what exclusive benefits can BKs claim to offer? If these benefits are not exclusive, how can BKs at the present time consider themselves to be the chosen ones, ancestors, the roots and foundation of the entire world civilization? You don't have to answer that ... It seems we both agree that the BKs, as a group, have not been universally liberated by the esoteric knowledge revealed through the BK founder.
Regards,