Judgment vs. Discernment

[Imzadi]

Originally Posted by davidsun

I do not think you made 'small' i.e. insignificant differentiations, just that they are 'idiosyncratic', IMO - i.e. not referential in relation to what those terms are generally taken to mean.

As to the kind of thing I think of as BIG and COMPLEX, here's an excerpt from a piece I wrote trying to elucidate Jesus' world-view in more generally understandable terms (highlighted in red):

"It has more recently struck me that developments in the field of modern computer systems may provide us with an even more illustrative model for the universally creative, feedback-loop based interfusion of The Essence of Creativity (i.e. what Jesus referenced as ‘the Father’) and the [color]Life[/color] of every individual and amalgamated aspect of Its expression. To explore this proposition, imagine if you will that the main aim or goal of said Essence’s ‘program’ – the primary motive (i.e. ‘desire’) ensconced in its ‘source code’ – is to maximally express and thereby experience Love and Joy, to Joyfully express and experience Love and Lovingly express and experience Joy to the greatest possible degree in every possible way, or something like that.

Next, to picture the activity of the Living Entity of our Creation (i.e. what Jesus referenced as ‘the Son’), imagine a universe-sized network made up of an infinite array of banks upon banks of computers matrixially web-strung together by way of both parallel and series connections, all simultaneously, individually and together, multi-processing the above referenced Love and Joy ‘program’, with each processor and every amalgamation thereof functionally outputting the ‘solution’ it ‘calculates’ will most probably yield the greatest possible Love and Joy ‘result’ in its case (as far as it can prognostically project, that is), which ‘solution’ then operationally functions as input in relation of any and all associated processors to whatever extent they ‘calculate’ it to be relevant to their own Love and Joy process, such that said output-n-input data-packet sequences co-actively ripple and reverberate around the network, sparking Love and Joy focused perceptions and decisions (i.e. experiences and expressions) which conjointly determine what takes place here, there and everywhere in ‘the body’ of said Entity over the course of time."

I did not think you thought of anything in particular, David. However, once again I lack the ability to comprehend your wisdom. Sometimes I think my lack of cognitive abilities is truly preventing me from having a proper discussion on the forums so I'll simply concede to your better and wiser judgement. *Big Hugs* :)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by davidsun

What if you 'inwardly' (as you say) consider whether "self inquiry" might be "the way to enlightenment" and it makes sense to you? I assume you would say that that is 'discernment' as well - because it has nothing to do with what you discerningly or otherwise 'judge' Ramana to be or not be. That is in line with your logic here, yes?

Precisely.

[headincloud]

I'd be interested to read her book and I'm left intrigued by his perception of God and God's will which he didn't elaborate on along with his concept of oneness hence I can't grasp what he's trying to convey, what he's described in the authors actions doesn't line up with my ideas around oneness or his apparently??

To my limited understanding oneness is gained through awareness of what is causing the sense of separation, attitudes, incorrect perceptions, social conditioning, parental influences and the list goes on, the focus is on self awareness in short and we need the knowledge and intention to change it not out of a sense of religious guilt but based in the understanding that all life is sacred. That is my will which I've aligned with source to the best of my ability however separation and disconnection is also part of the divine plan so I'd agree this author was acting under Gods Will from that angle, how else would we learn the consequences and results of what we've produced.

[inavalan]

I don't see how the original post fits in the "Non-duality" forum ...

Any way, many people who have strong opinions on some subject aren't aware that they don't apply the same criteria to themselves.

A couple of days ago, I was having a casual discussion at a dinner party. The man was very bitter about the rich of the World (especially from US republican party) not sharing their wealth with the poor of the World (South Chicago crime infested neighborhood for example). It was neither the time and the place, nor the person with whom to start a contradictory discussion, so I haven't asked what is he doing in that direction, what is he willing to give up in order to make a difference. Is he willing to give up his yearly $10,000 European vacation? Or maybe the electronic gadgets he buys? (I know he works hard for his money, and he is very tight with most of his spending). His probable reply would've been: there are others who have much more. My point is: put your money where your mouth is!

[markings]

Originally Posted by Imzadi

Judgement = labeling and differentiating something by way of the ego often times accompanied by feelings of superiority or inferiority

Discernment = perceiving and understanding something logically or intuitively without the influence of the ego thus feelings of superiority or inferiority are absent

Judgment is between good and bad, right and wrong. There are universal principles for this.
Discernment is between one good or right and another good or right.

Ego doesn't have to enter but we so like to talk about that. :)

[Imzadi]

Originally Posted by markings

Judgment is between good and bad, right and wrong. There are universal principles for this.
Discernment is between one good or right and another good or right.

Ego doesn't have to enter but we so like to talk about that. :)

I think I understand what you mean in terms of seeing the words "judgement" and "discernment" in a different context. While the example that I gave in my original post pointed to one dimension, the definition that you gave allows us to perceive it in a broader and simpler context.

Utilizing your definition of the terms you gave, I came up with an example of how to illustrate your point:

A neighborhood is being consumed by wildfire. Deciding whether to evacuate immediately or checking to see if an elderly neighbor needed help first would be an exercise of judgement. Finally free from the immediate evacuation zone, the survivor can decide which place to go. They might go to a shelter on the outskirts or a hotel closer to downtown where they work. Deciding to stay at the hotel is an exercise of discernment. :)

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

[indent]... because of the nature of each, ego always has an opinion and so judgment may assert even when it is not necessary, whereas the intuitive discernment as part of its unitary nature will more likely arise only when it is necessary as an aspect of 'knowing' the will, of simultaneously the 'parts' (e.g., differentiated aspects)/and the whole as interrelated and interdependent as One.

Just want to say, that what's referenced as 'the ego' is also a functioning (living) part of our Living (functioning) One(ness). A healthy ego recognizes that 'it' is only a part and that everyone and everything else is also a part of THAT which one is a part of.

A word to those who would be wise - beware (be aware!): In the case of an unhealthy ego, by which I mean one that is emotionally 'warped' by excessive personal desires, that person's 'intuition' will also 'yield' unhealthy-emotion-ally biased realizations, i.e. 'discernments'. There are many self-proclaimed and other-proclaimed (IMO) egoless peeps running around - watch that you yourself don;t become one of them - who 'intuitively' make what a 'sane' (i.e. emotionally balanced) person readily sees as being 'stupidly' self-serving and other-dishonoring assessments and decisions.

It's tricky to 'diagnose'. Ego-'sickness' is, more often than not, not recognized by 'sick' egos. (A sense of personal 'grandiosity' and 'entitlement' may be easily rationalized (away) by a whole slew of mental machinations.) Also, as is clear in the case of 'leaders' of all sorts - in the field of politics, fashion, even 'spirituality' and 'religion' - it is often 'adulated' by 'sick' 'followers' (ones who are similarly 'warped'!).

A healthy ego, on the other hand, may be be a healthy-intuition channeling 'blessing'!

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Imzadi

I did not think you thought of anything in particular, David. However, once again I lack the ability to comprehend your wisdom. Sometimes I think my lack of cognitive abilities is truly preventing me from having a proper discussion on the forums so I'll simply concede to your better and wiser judgement. *Big Hugs* :)

There are many 'ways' to gain and live with 'wisdom'. Intellect is only a path (i.e. 'tool') - which may be traveled/used well or poorly. There are other non-verbal ways of relating to Life, which also may be traveled/used well or poorly. I 'see' (discern? judge? ) that you are traveling very well, friend.

My unasked for advice: Don't ever 'concede'. Just 'consider' what is said, and 'concur' or 'disagree' or 'reserve' your 'judgment' depending on whether what is said makes sense to you or doesn't.

I am happy if what I says stimulates you (anyone) into deeper consideration (on their own terms) of a subject. Please know that I very much I appreciate the quality (it is quite tangible) of your endeavor to relate to the issues being discussed. If we were just talking one on one face to face I might be able to adjust my presentation in such a way as to make it (more) understandable to you. But I am speaking to/with folks 'in general' via this forum setting - I very much regret its practical (i.e. personal) limitations.

P.S. As you can see from my above response, I experience the things that you say to be a great stimulus to consider and verbally respond to issues which are implicit in the con-verse-ation in greater depth. I very much appreciate your stimulus in this regard, so please don't stop saying 'your piece' (whether it be BIG or small :biggrin) on my account.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by headincloud

I'd be interested to read her book and I'm left intrigued by his perception of God and God's will which he didn't elaborate on along with his concept of oneness hence I can't grasp what he's trying to convey, what he's described in the authors actions doesn't line up with my ideas around oneness or his apparently??

To my limited understanding oneness is gained through awareness of what is causing the sense of separation, attitudes, incorrect perceptions, social conditioning, parental influences and the list goes on, the focus is on self awareness in short and we need the knowledge and intention to change it not out of a sense of religious guilt but based in the understanding that all life is sacred. That is my will which I've aligned with source to the best of my ability however separation and disconnection is also part of the divine plan so I'd agree this author was acting under Gods Will from that angle, how else would we learn the consequences and results of what we've produced.

Great 'cloud' to have one's head in.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by davidsun

It's tricky to 'diagnose'. Ego-'sickness' is, more often than not, not recognized by 'sick' egos. (A sense of personal 'grandiosity' and 'entitlement' may be easily rationalized (away) by a whole slew of mental machinations.) Also, as is clear in the case of 'leaders' of all sorts - in the field of politics, fashion, even 'spirituality' and 'religion' - it is often 'adulated' by 'sick' 'followers' (ones who are similarly 'warped'!).

A healthy ego, on the other hand, may be be a healthy-intuition channeling 'blessing'!

To clarify what I mean by 'healthy': I mean 'wholesome', i.e. balanced, motives and behaviors in relation to the vital life-requirements of other aspects of the 'whole', hence one might say 'in accord' or 'integrally aligned' with the 'design' of the 'whole' itself.

P.S. it is not just 'adulating' 'followers' who may be (equally) 'sick'. Even those who 'see' the ego-'sickness' in others may be just as ego-'sick', albeit in a way that looks different.

The fella in the video (linked to in the OP) who 'saw' inconsistencies between the philosophy espoused by author he met and her actual interpersonal behavior in relation to the beggar but didn't see the same other-devaluing disconnect in his verbal/behavioral response to his (self-declared) girl-'friend' -- presumably because his was not displayed by gross 'anger' but by subtle 'smugness' and concomitant simply sweep its significance under the rug disregard of the relational requirements for a marital relationship to be, for want of better words, functionally 'good' -- is a great illustrative case in point.

P.P.S. 'Outstanding' (i.e. 'champion') smuggers -- association with the word 'muggers' intended!) -- like the Pat Robertson,* may also 'attract' a retinue of like-to-feel-'superior', hence smugness-inclined, types of egos, as well. 'Religious' and 'spiritual' movements are a 'haven' for such as these. I would bet that the fella in the video has at at least a small 'following' in such regard as well - he looks sweet-n-shinny and sounds so nice, aye what?

P.P.P.S. * Speaking of the reliability of 'intuition' in and of itself, you can just imagine what Pat Robertson's intuition tells (or reveals to) him , can't you?