From a site visitor: “You talked about no “right or wrong”…“good or bad”…“moral or immoral,” but if everyone thought like you and ignored the laws of god and man, then we’d have total chaos.”
F.: First, I do not think. Secondly, your world is involved in total chaos. That said, since earlier posts have not clarified the pointer for you, maybe another approach will. To begin, know that the Realized can forfeit belief in the dualities you listed without being driven to chaos or being inspired to “harm others” in the relative existence. Here’s the way that was addressed earlier:
There is no effort to acquire power, so that which always follows the accumulation of power—the abuse of power—ends. No Advaitan need be concerned with the dualities of “moral vs. immoral” or “harming vs. not harming” since the desire for power and control (and the fear of not having power and control) end. Persons might label an Advaitan "moral,” but the truth is that natural living just happens in a non-judgmental, non-abusive fashion because the Oneness is known, because no “others” exist, because there are no beliefs (including the belief that one can be elevated by bringing “others” down), and because no accumulation and abuse of power happens.
As for you, the first suggestion is to evaluate objectively each belief you have. What evidence do you think you see that the “laws of god and man” are actually working to prevent chaos or to deter conduct that you’d label “immoral”? What would you do that is "immoral" if there were not a law prohibiting it? Should you righteously answer, "Nothing!" then how many others might be the same way, even without the "benefit" of your laws? Also, how many are involved in acts that are prohibited by "the laws of god or man" but are not deterred in the least by all those written laws?
F.: First, I do not think. Secondly, your world is involved in total chaos. That said, since earlier posts have not clarified the pointer for you, maybe another approach will. To begin, know that the Realized can forfeit belief in the dualities you listed without being driven to chaos or being inspired to “harm others” in the relative existence. Here’s the way that was addressed earlier:
There is no effort to acquire power, so that which always follows the accumulation of power—the abuse of power—ends. No Advaitan need be concerned with the dualities of “moral vs. immoral” or “harming vs. not harming” since the desire for power and control (and the fear of not having power and control) end. Persons might label an Advaitan "moral,” but the truth is that natural living just happens in a non-judgmental, non-abusive fashion because the Oneness is known, because no “others” exist, because there are no beliefs (including the belief that one can be elevated by bringing “others” down), and because no accumulation and abuse of power happens.
As for you, the first suggestion is to evaluate objectively each belief you have. What evidence do you think you see that the “laws of god and man” are actually working to prevent chaos or to deter conduct that you’d label “immoral”? What would you do that is "immoral" if there were not a law prohibiting it? Should you righteously answer, "Nothing!" then how many others might be the same way, even without the "benefit" of your laws? Also, how many are involved in acts that are prohibited by "the laws of god or man" but are not deterred in the least by all those written laws?
On the other hand, do you see any contrary evidence, that those claiming to be “the moral ones” are the very ones who are driven to create chaos by their distorted thinking around what is “right or wrong”…“good or bad”…“moral or immoral”? Half of the U.S. population was whipped into a state of emotional intoxication when the government of another country was labeled “bad,” “wrong,” and “immoral.” Part of the justification for bombing that country was the fact that hundreds of women were being raped annually and thousands had been killed. Yet in the U.S., 360,000 women are raped annually and over 17,000 people are murdered each year. Following that line of "reasoning" by the “moral” leaders here, shouldn’t the top priority have been for the U.S. to bomb itself? Too, since the U.S. attack, instances of rapes and killings have risen sharply in that invaded nation. 1,000,000 women and 21,000 babies are raped in Africa each year, and hundreds of thousands have been killed in recent wars. Should Africa be bombed as an act of “moral” conscience? See that the person who began the current war is claiming that (1) God told him to attack that country and that (2) starting the war was perfectly legal. Then you’re invited to compare how well the “laws of god and man” are preventing chaos vs. how they are actually inspiring chaos.
Few objective observers would applaud humankind’s efforts to avoid chaos and harm, even after thousands of years of having available “the laws of god.” As far as the “laws of men,” the number of “crimes” as defined by those laws increases annually. You’re also invited to see how chaos totally dominates the lives of persons, families, nations, and billions of persons here and around the globe.
Few objective observers would applaud humankind’s efforts to avoid chaos and harm, even after thousands of years of having available “the laws of god.” As far as the “laws of men,” the number of “crimes” as defined by those laws increases annually. You’re also invited to see how chaos totally dominates the lives of persons, families, nations, and billions of persons here and around the globe.
The Realized, on the other hand (who are free of all “right-wrong,” “good-bad,” or “moral-immoral” labels) are also free of any desire to accumulate power; thus, they abuse no power. The next suggestion is that you take every other belief that you have and ask, “Is it possible that belief is a lie? Is it possible that the exact opposite of that belief is what is really true?” The understanding that seems radical and outlandish to the majority is what objective observers know is reality, and reality is always the opposite of what persons believe the truth to be. Please enter the silence of contemplation. [To be continued tomorrow]
