Polytheists, Paths, Peaks, and Pilgrims

If that socially unaware person gives charity to a starving man, he already has the potential to stop contributing to an evil economy. His heart is in the right place. He just needs some education. :)

He made need more than that,
to make the effort towards sustainability,
or a more responsible way of life,
but that's a good point too.

Originally Posted by Valus

I think, if your path is one of direct action, then no arguments about the effectiveness of indirect action, "action at a distance", or "action by intent", will carry significant weight with you. This is how it is, and probably how it ought to be. If you truly accepted the argument of a hermit, you would have to become a hermit yourself, right? But if your destiny is to contribute in a more direct way to society, then arguments about direct action (feeding the hungry -- with actual bread) are the ones which will truly appeal and make sense to you. That's fine.

There is a saying attributed to Jesus about not hiding "your candle under a bushel"; if you have a light, it says, go to where you can be seen and let your light shine on everyone. I'm not sure how a hermit would interpret this saying. Perhaps there is a more esoteric meaning. But, I suspect, it will be clear only to the ones for whom it is intended. Who has ears to hear, will hear. Not because they are more evolved, but because they are in harmony with that particular path.

While I may speculate on, or even believe in, the ability of a hermit to do more good, or as much good, cloistered in his/her little hut or cave, as he might do "in the world", the reality is that I myself am not a hermit, and giving too much credence to that perspective might hinder me from fulfilling my own particular mission. This isn't a failure to be objective, so much as it is a way to honor my own subjectivity. Let the hermit argue for the hermit, -- or, rather, let someone else argue for the hermit, if it is their path to argue for the hermit.

One thing I will say in favor of that life: Before we can heal others, we must cease to harm them. Whether or not the hermit is healing others, he/she is ceasing to harm them. At least, directly. I suppose, if you believe in healing at a distance, then harming at a distance happens too.

Well now I'm starting to wonder again just what I think!

"If you cannot find peace in the marketplace,
you will seek for it in vain in the monastery."
~ Meister Eckhart

Right on, Valus!

I know one ex-hermit, but he is old now and ordained 2 monks. And the hermitage is open for all who wish to come.

I am actually considering becoming a hermit, though I have no ideas or aspirations of living alone the rest of my life, and leave human relations for good.

But, I do accept and respect the ones that make that choice. Because in that choice they are definitely not making the world a worse place, but in fact contributing by ceasing to contribute to a worsening state. Not a waste of human life at all, in my view. The soul came for an experience, maybe that life was exactly the experience the soul was looking for?


The Buddha too was pondering whether he should start to teach or not after attaining enlightenment.




I really enjoy this conversation, thank you for sharing guys.

E,

Thanks. :)


AV,

Those are worthy considerations.

The Buddha did teach, though.
It has to make you wonder why.

I enjoyed it too, thanks. :)

Maybe because he was the only one at the time, and if he didnt it would possibly be eons before someone else could do the same. But during the buddhas encounters there are several that gets enlightened, and his teachings is given to the world. which is still here.. so maybe there is more freedom for the enlightened to leave now, then there was for Gautam Buddha?

Originally Posted by Erato

That's a liberating thought and a dangerous concept.

I agree about duality and that we do ascribe value to one as oppose to the other. We do however have to be careful not to get carried away in our choosing. There are right ways and there are wrong ways. We need those definitions in order to function on same basic level within society. We need common grounds in expression and behavior enough to make us feel connected just so we can at least talk to each other. Diversity can be celebrated, too much diversity can lead to disassociation. Agreeing upon common values first is what keeps us together and it's not such a bad thing. Humans need other humans.

So I both agree and disagree with you.
There is a "correct" answer that leads to "correct" action. That answer comes not only from you but from the collective experience as well.

In my experience, all liberating thoughts are dangerous concepts, in one way or another. Dangerous to what or whom? That is the pertinent question.

But I digress. I never said that common values should be thrown out. That would be iconoclasm for iconoclasm's sake: chaotic, disruptive, and not conducive to self-definition at all. I merely mean that nearly all of these common values are human-created concepts, and that they hold only and precisely as much importance as we choose to give them. Any time you give an idea a life and reality of it's own, you run the risk of creating subconscious self-limitations based around them.

Let me give you an dynamite example: abortion. A great many people believe that abortion is murder, especially people of a conservative Christian bent. What many of them do not realize is that there are a great many subconscious assumptions about life, death, and morality that color their thinking and thus attract them to a "pro-life" stance. One such assumption has to do with the dual beliefs in 1) punitive afterlives and 2) the necessity of certain rituals to avoid said afterlives. I refer to the belief that the sacrament of Baptism is a requirement to get into Heaven. If one believes that a person only gets one life, that Hell exists, and that to get into Heaven one must be baptized, of course someone with such beliefs will be "pro-life", since the soul of the aborted fetus would have no chance to get into Paradise under such conditions. Yet many people who hold these beliefs neither think about their beliefs in such a way, nor consider the possibility that others may hold different assumptions, and thus come to different conclusions. Take such a stance to the extreme and you end up with people who can completely justify to themselves the act of shooting doctors outside abortion clinics.

This is just one extreme example, but my point holds true; very little good comes from ever assuming that any moral structure exists outside the minds of humanity.

More later, my eyes are having problems focusing.

CS

Originally Posted by Valus

.Poor pilgrim... All day long, the sun is your companion, but every night, she takes her leave. The shadows grow colder, and shadows are your only cover. Some men have answers, like children have teddybears, to cling to in the dark. Cuddly mock-ups of the real thing. But you've just got an empty cup. You cling to it like the last grain of rice, drying like a drop.

Beautiful.

Thank you.

It's been said that we become enlightened many times in a day.

I think, in the old texts, when they say "he became enlightened",
they often mean it like that; he became aware, for a moment.

I considered becoming a monk or a hermit myself,
back in my early and mid twenties.

Decided I didn't have the temperament,
or maybe the will, for it.

I'm trying to find a quote I read the other day...

Something like:

"Many people think they're drawn to God, or Nature,
when they're really only repulsed by mankind."

I can sure relate to that sometimes.

Not today, though.
Loving my brothers and sisters today.