|
|
Post by freejoy on Aug 27, 2013 12:26:31 GMT -5
Just wondering if being a good person would be better for the world or if being enlightened would be better?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 27, 2013 12:44:05 GMT -5
Just wondering if being a good person would be better for the world or if being enlightened would be better? Thanks Who is asking, and why does it matter? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 27, 2013 13:03:49 GMT -5
Just wondering if being a good person would be better for the world or if being enlightened would be better? Thanks Everybody knows each person has a different definition of what's a good person or what's an enlightened person.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2013 13:42:10 GMT -5
Just wondering if being a good person would be better for the world or if being enlightened would be better? Thanks Everybody knows each person has a different definition of what's a good person or what's an enlightened person. Indeed. Actually, there are no enlightened persons, only individuated expressions through which self realization has occurred, and as such, notions about how that personality should change may be highly distorted. It's also true that 'good/bad person' is highly subjective and mostly arbitrary, and self realization doesn't inform mind about some absolute goodness. Rather, it widens the perspective dramatically to allow for the.....um.....perfection of all things. Good and evil have their place in that perfection, and while things can and will be done to move toward good and away from evil, nothing needs to be done. The 'battle' will not be won. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 27, 2013 16:03:10 GMT -5
Everybody knows each person has a different definition of what's a good person or what's an enlightened person. Indeed. Actually, there are no enlightened persons, only individuated expressions through which self realization has occurred, and as such, notions about how that personality should change may be highly distorted. It's also true that 'good/bad person' is highly subjective and mostly arbitrary, and self realization doesn't inform mind about some absolute goodness. Rather, it widens the perspective dramatically to allow for the.....um.....perfection of all things. Good and evil have their place in that perfection, and while things can and will be done to move toward good and away from evil, nothing needs to be done. The 'battle' will not be won. Spoken like a true moral dualist. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 27, 2013 18:32:18 GMT -5
Indeed. Actually, there are no enlightened persons, only individuated expressions through which self realization has occurred, and as such, notions about how that personality should change may be highly distorted. It's also true that 'good/bad person' is highly subjective and mostly arbitrary, and self realization doesn't inform mind about some absolute goodness. Rather, it widens the perspective dramatically to allow for the.....um.....perfection of all things. Good and evil have their place in that perfection, and while things can and will be done to move toward good and away from evil, nothing needs to be done. The 'battle' will not be won. Spoken like a true moral dualist. I took that to mean that while there's right action there's no right actor and no forcing the issue either way. The references to highly distorted notions and no enlightened persons seemed to me to point away from any suggestion of a moral code. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2013 18:55:32 GMT -5
Indeed. Actually, there are no enlightened persons, only individuated expressions through which self realization has occurred, and as such, notions about how that personality should change may be highly distorted. It's also true that 'good/bad person' is highly subjective and mostly arbitrary, and self realization doesn't inform mind about some absolute goodness. Rather, it widens the perspective dramatically to allow for the.....um.....perfection of all things. Good and evil have their place in that perfection, and while things can and will be done to move toward good and away from evil, nothing needs to be done. The 'battle' will not be won. Spoken like a true moral dualist. I'm not clear whether you think that's good or evil, but I'm leaning toward the latter.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 27, 2013 19:06:03 GMT -5
Spoken like a true moral dualist. I'm not clear whether you think that's good or evil, but I'm leaning toward the latter. Spoken like a true moral dualist.  |
|
|
|
Post by desertrat on Aug 27, 2013 20:05:58 GMT -5
I would think one could be a good person and be/become enlightened at the same time .
|
|
|
|
Post by silence on Aug 27, 2013 21:01:07 GMT -5
Just wondering if being a good person would be better for the world or if being enlightened would be better? Thanks What's best for the world is probably if all the people were wiped out. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 27, 2013 22:01:29 GMT -5
Just wondering if being a good person would be better for the world or if being enlightened would be better? Thanks What's best for the world is probably if all the people were wiped out. Hard to disagree with this one, as cynical as it sounds.  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 27, 2013 22:42:36 GMT -5
What's best for the world is probably if all the people were wiped out. Hard to disagree with this one, as cynical as it sounds. Jeepers, fellas.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 27, 2013 23:06:18 GMT -5
Hard to disagree with this one, as cynical as it sounds. Jeepers, fellas. FWIW I also agree. I suggest the question of what's best for the world is best left unasked.  |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 28, 2013 19:12:54 GMT -5
Hard to disagree with this one, as cynical as it sounds. Jeepers, fellas. Yeah, well, what's 'best' is still a concept based in duality. What is, still is. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Aug 28, 2013 19:14:09 GMT -5
Jeepers, fellas. FWIW I also agree. I suggest the question of what's best for the world is best left unasked. Mostly, I just have no interest in what's 'best' for anyone or anything. Too easy to get attached to such a concept. |
|
