the lie of attack
 

I've found that the vast majority of people believe the lies I'm gonna mention in this post. I also feel that it's very important, for one's own and others' sakes, and for the good of society, to understand that they are, indeed, lies.

'Attack' often, and usually does, take subtle forms, in which the one attacking may not even be aware that they're doing so. It can require great honesty and humility to recognize one's own attacks as attacks.

A choice is either an 'attack', or it is not. In that sense it's an ABSOLUTE. A Course in Miracles is emphatic that attack is NEVER justified, wise, or appropriate.

The following are three lies about attack. I urge you to honestly ask yourself if you believe them.

- Attack is justified.

Attack is in its nature hypocritical because the attacker claims to be RIGHT - they claim to be justified. Yet ACIM says, 'All attack can only be unjust,' and, 'Attack is never justified.'

- To attack another can be SELF-loving.

This is perhaps the greatest lie about attack. People tend to see attack as 'justified self-defense' - as self-love. Yet to attack another is ALWAYS to attack ONESELF. This is what ACIM calls the 'law of love' (the law of karma) - what you give, you receive, multiplied. This isn't 'punishment', is just what's BEST for everyone (even for the one attacking).

- It is strong and powerful to attack.

ACIM calls this 'upside down perception', in which things are the OPPOSITE of what they seem. Rather than being strong or powerful, people are being WEAK when they attack. ACIM says, 'What seems to be strength is really weakness, and what seems to be weakness is strength.'

I feel that these three lies need to be seen clearly in order for people to fully relinquish attack.

Attacking is an action that has nothing to do with lies or truth. Pushing someone is not a truth or a lie, its an action.

Claiming one thing as a lie while fulfilling it with your own lies. Lying to oneself in the name of honesty.

The lies of attack:

"All attack can only be unjust,' and, 'Attack is never justified"

"To attack another is ALWAYS to attack ONESELF."

"Rather than being strong or powerful, people are being WEAK when they attack."

My judgement on whether an attack is weak or strong, unjust or justified, depends on the situation being dealt with. To save your own life or the life of your child, family, or friend can be justified.

It's a word that comes with connotations. It doesn't have to be bad or a lie but may come from necessity.

Like, it's time I attacked some work I'm supposed to be doing today (rather than being here, LOL), a discipline problem facing a chore.

I may have to attack someone (by way of pressure) to whom I farmed out work and it's getting near the deadline.

Physical / verbally abusive attack (particularly in the absence of provocation) is never justified though there may be some internal psychological motive, but is it a lie? I personally don't think so. There's almost always a reason behind it which socially / culturally may be considered bad.
.

It's tricky, we all know ? of a certain President who calls pointing out facts "attacks" and those that point out his lies "enemies". Is it true though?

That said, nice sentiment, overall, and don't disagree it's an important consideration, happy soul.

BT

Yes, i can only agree with it, (being student of the course).

Here in this ytube-video is the explanation of the upside down seeing of the eyes. (time from 1:00 to 1:50

I'm not sure how anyone can trust the images they see, when the images, which are seen, are actually upside down.
It means that there must be something, which has to do work, to turn that picture in the 'correct' way, in which you/we see this world.

Anyway, the world is reporting you, through the eyes, that the strength of the own body is what will make you safe (remember karate, boxing and other things).

What is less obvious when you are engaged in the material world is, that you are spiritual being, which is unable of attack of any kind.
More over, if you are spiritual, you would need to lower your own vibration, to a such low level, to be even able to punch something away, with your fists. (including the vibration of the thing which you are punching, which is,as spiritually seen, your origin)

God does not do this, and he has not forbidden it, but neither allowed it:He simply does not know of attack.
The only thing what he said is: when you do this, you will make myself enemy to you.

Low vibration is what makes this world appear solid and permanent.
When you have attacking thoughts, you are on such low vibrational frequency that your mind can do nothing but to believe whatever the eyes are reporting it.

Being deluded, the mind, which attacks, forgets that it is of spirit and by attacking, it learns to keep and to reproduce these low vibrations. This makes it forget, that the real world, in which it was made, is actually peaceful and loving, where no attack is possible because there is nothing which can attack.

The closest thing which you can imagine, in this case is air attacking air (or sunbeam vs sunbeam). Its actually Impossible.
But human imagination may tell you a story that it is actually possible - remember star wars - the lightsaber fight.


Thanks for reading.

Just wanted to add that what I think you are referring to, and also needs to be differentiated is speaking up versus an attack.

This is tricky territory because there are many grey lines, and it will be dependent on person, situation and territory but ultimately what you are saying (I believe) is that the law is that for one who is no longer bound by ego, speaking is useful, but what is hard is for one to forsake and be unbound by ego.

If one speaks sweet words, but lies and misleads others into corruption, is this acceptable?

If one attacks indirectly, and uses others to attack, is this acceptable?

If one speaks up to tyranny or lies, is this acceptable?

If one does not speak up and hides instead, is this acceptable?

If one lies but speaks directly, is this acceptable?

If one speaks truth through strong direct speech, is this acceptable?

If one points out the corrupt, is this acceptable?

I believe, as in all things, it will depend on the person and the context. But again what I believe you are ultimately referring to is if a person can speak out of true love or not. True love in this context means the actualization of God or Buddha nature - knowing that other is self intimately and living this as a truth, the full unbinding of ego (not repression of self-talk, but actualization of God-nature - which is the Buddha's liberation or Jesus's actualization)

Herein, there can be more trust. There are posters on this forum who actualize such truths and do not from ego, in my opinion. Though they bring no attention to themselves, their example is clear, and I for one am honored to be in their presence.

Until then, such absolutes are hard to judge.

ACIM I presume talks of the Law of Self - as other is none other than self, than of course there are consequences, but until one is mired in the delusions of ego, well we all know how much conceit that involves. :smile: And thus the purest laws can be forgone. When the true manifests, all becomes true. When the false speak, even the pretty bow tie and "soft words" on top is just a pile of poo-ey - conceit runs deep. That is why the holy life is best lived to fruition of God or Buddha nature, and all spiritual masters teach this to be the real goal.

BT

I get what the OP says about needing a lot of honesty to recognize your own attacks.

I was attacking people with my words and antisocial behavior for years before I realized I was taking away from people.

It's a precarious dance to never attack someone. Really hard to do.

Lazydullard,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this and the other thread, the road less traveled.

I went on a retreat many years ago held by a man named Tara Singh, and his 'main teaching' was self-honesty.

I believe he had found enlightenment, and he was one of the most amazing people I've ever encountered. It was obvious that he was completely different from most people. He had an aura that created a spiritual silence in the room. He was a personal student and friend of J. Krishnamurti.

One reason I'm saying this is because, even though we shouldn't blindly trust or agree with someone just because they've found enlightenment, it does perhaps make one more open to what they say or give them more credulity.

Being totally honest with myself, I can recognize that I often lie to myself, I do need to work on being honest with myself.

ACIM says that generally people have an ego agenda or goal of self-deception. We must deceive ourselves if we want to continue with egocentric habits and ways of thinking.

The solution to this problem imo is simply to recognize it and accept it. We need to forgive ourselves completely and know that we're okay.

Change happens with self-acceptance and self-forgiveness.