--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: >> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: >>> --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" >>> <anartaxius@> wrote:
>>> <snip> >>>> Emily, (and Ann) seem to have the capacity to actually >>>> converse with Barry and Curtis on some points, and it >>>> would be a shame if they lost that capability by becoming >>>> more reactionary or antagonistic, regardless of how >>>> antagonistic Curtis or Barry might seem. That requires >>>> they transcend their psychological 'buttons'. You cannot >>>> soften these guys up emotionally, you need to find >>>> another approach. >>> >>> There is no way to "soften up" Barry or Curtis except >>> by acquiescing in their dishonesty and thus losing one's >>> own integrity. >> >> The key here is what integrity is construed to be. I am >> going to assume, without proof that we would disagree on >> this. Let me make a guess, which if wrong, I will admit: >> >> I would pick the second of these two definitions for myself, >> but I sense you would pick the first for yourself, or pick >> both; in my estimation, your actions seem to speak for the >> first definition as being dominant. >> >> 1. Adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; >> honesty. >> >> 2. The state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: > > Not only would I pick both, I don't see how you can have > either one without the other. There is a saying in Zen: 'Walk off with the farmer's ox; steal the blind man's food.' It is an expression of unboundedness. It does not mean one will do that, but it indicates that reality has more properties than is constrained by moral thinking. The objective nature of the world as we call it, is filled with morally abhorrent things. So either reality is essentially non moral, or those horrible things, such as a monk burning himself into a pile of ash, are in reality not horrible. Wonderful perhaps? If Maharishi cognized reality, does this have any relation to things some have accused him of, such as siphoning money off to relatives, relations with women etc.? Things that, if the talk was true, he would not be capable of doing. There is something unholy about the full expanse of being. Krishna speaking to Arjuna: Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people. With the exception of you, all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain. Therefore get up. Prepare to fight and win glory. Conquer your enemies and enjoy a flourishing kingdom. They are already put to death by my arrangement, and you, O SavyasÄcÄ«, can be but an instrument in the fight. Drona, BhÄ«sma, Jayadratha, Karna and the other great warriors have already been destroyed by me. Therefore, kill them and do not be disturbed. Simply fight, and you will vanquish your enemies in battle. One sees this in many things, a cute squirrel being ripped apart alive by a hawk, a burning monk, a child drowned by their parent, Bernie Madoff fleecing his clients, the list goes on and on. The world does not track a moral intelligence.
