|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 9, 2014 12:32:45 GMT -5
That's one of the trickiest distinctions I am trying to make: distinguishing discernment from judgment. There seems to be two directives. One is to be critical of myself and others, to be wary of faults and errors. The other is to live and let live, be positive and non-judgmental. Yes, it's very tricky if one is judging the distinction rather than discerning it. Errors are discerned, faults are judgments. The attempt to be positive and non-judgmental is already a judgment placed on oneself that one is being too negative and judgmental. As such, one cannot approach that distinction as a means of behavior modification. One cannot say, 'I am being too judgmental and need to learn to discern'. This is also why one who is viewing others through judgment cannot discern when others are viewing through discernment. It's not just tricky, it's impossible. One must lose one's ability to judge, and only then can the distinction between judgment and discernment be discerned rather than judged. This loss is a consequence of the realization of non-volition and non-separation, and may have such a profound effect on one's ability to place blame and cultivate retribution that there may be a period of mourning for that loss. Discernment, as I see it, is pure seeing, witnessing, and therefore is dispassionate. It's possible to watch your house burn down and be free of any judgement about it. Judgement, again as I see, is when emotion, especially negative emotion, is added to the seeing. Resentment, anger, upset indulged in while watching your house burn down effectively adds judgement to otherwise pure seeing. The wise man knows not to judge anything good or bad, because what looks bad can turn out to be good. And what looks good can turn out to be bad. We just can not know what comes of what or why. Best to just go with the flow without adding any labels or judgement of what is good or what is bad. Tolle: "The deeper interconnectedness of all things and events implies that the mental labels of "good" and "bad" are ultimately illusory. They always imply a limited perspective and so are true only relatively and temporarily. This is illustrated in the story of a wise man who won an expensive car in a lottery. His family and friends were very happy for him and came to celebrate. "Isn't it great!" they said. "You are so lucky." The man smiled and said, "Maybe." For a few weeks he enjoyed driving the car. Then one day a drunken driver crashed into his new car at an intersection and he ended up in the hospital, with multiple injuries. His family and friends came to see him and said, "That was really unfortunate." Again the man smiled and said, "Maybe." While he was still in the hospital, one night there was a landslide and his house fell into the sea. Again his friends came the next day and said, "Weren't you lucky to have been here in hospital." Again he said, "Maybe." The wise man's "maybe" signifies a refusal to judge anything that happens. Instead of judging what is, he accepts it and so enters into conscious alignment with the higher order. He knows that often it is impossible for the mind to understand what place or purpose a seemingly random event has in the tapestry of the whole. But there are no random events, nor are there events or things that exist by and for themselves, in isolation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2014 13:24:34 GMT -5
Yes, it's very tricky if one is judging the distinction rather than discerning it. Errors are discerned, faults are judgments. The attempt to be positive and non-judgmental is already a judgment placed on oneself that one is being too negative and judgmental. As such, one cannot approach that distinction as a means of behavior modification. One cannot say, 'I am being too judgmental and need to learn to discern'. This is also why one who is viewing others through judgment cannot discern when others are viewing through discernment. It's not just tricky, it's impossible. One must lose one's ability to judge, and only then can the distinction between judgment and discernment be discerned rather than judged. This loss is a consequence of the realization of non-volition and non-separation, and may have such a profound effect on one's ability to place blame and cultivate retribution that there may be a period of mourning for that loss. Discernment, as I see it, is pure seeing, witnessing, and therefore is dispassionate. It's possible to watch your house burn down and be free of any judgement about it. Judgement, again as I see, is when emotion, especially negative emotion, is added to the seeing. Resentment, anger, upset indulged in while watching your house burn down effectively adds judgement to otherwise pure seeing. The wise man knows not to judge anything good or bad, because what looks bad can turn out to be good. And what looks good can turn out to be bad. We just can not know what comes of what or why. Best to just go with the flow without adding any labels or judgement of what is good or what is bad. Tolle: "The deeper interconnectedness of all things and events implies that the mental labels of "good" and "bad" are ultimately illusory. They always imply a limited perspective and so are true only relatively and temporarily. This is illustrated in the story of a wise man who won an expensive car in a lottery. His family and friends were very happy for him and came to celebrate. "Isn't it great!" they said. "You are so lucky." The man smiled and said, "Maybe." For a few weeks he enjoyed driving the car. Then one day a drunken driver crashed into his new car at an intersection and he ended up in the hospital, with multiple injuries. His family and friends came to see him and said, "That was really unfortunate." Again the man smiled and said, "Maybe." While he was still in the hospital, one night there was a landslide and his house fell into the sea. Again his friends came the next day and said, "Weren't you lucky to have been here in hospital." Again he said, "Maybe." The wise man's "maybe" signifies a refusal to judge anything that happens. Instead of judging what is, he accepts it and so enters into conscious alignment with the higher order. He knows that often it is impossible for the mind to understand what place or purpose a seemingly random event has in the tapestry of the whole. But there are no random events, nor are there events or things that exist by and for themselves, in isolation. This is an oldie that Tolle updated. The older version I heard was the wise father whose son broke his leg, etc. The phenomena of folks uttering "thank God!" or "we're lucky" when some disaster destroys everything except <fill in the blank> is interesting. It's very widespread and crosses all sorts of belief systems. Maybe it's just a hardwired coping mechanism -- seek out the silver lining so depression and grief don't paralyze you into inaction.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Jul 9, 2014 13:43:54 GMT -5
Yes, it's very tricky if one is judging the distinction rather than discerning it. Errors are discerned, faults are judgments. The attempt to be positive and non-judgmental is already a judgment placed on oneself that one is being too negative and judgmental. As such, one cannot approach that distinction as a means of behavior modification. One cannot say, 'I am being too judgmental and need to learn to discern'. This is also why one who is viewing others through judgment cannot discern when others are viewing through discernment. It's not just tricky, it's impossible. One must lose one's ability to judge, and only then can the distinction between judgment and discernment be discerned rather than judged. This loss is a consequence of the realization of non-volition and non-separation, and may have such a profound effect on one's ability to place blame and cultivate retribution that there may be a period of mourning for that loss. Discernment, as I see it, is pure seeing, witnessing, and therefore is dispassionate. It's possible to watch your house burn down and be free of any judgement about it. Judgement, again as I see, is when emotion, especially negative emotion, is added to the seeing. Resentment, anger, upset indulged in while watching your house burn down effectively adds judgement to otherwise pure seeing. The wise man knows not to judge anything good or bad, because what looks bad can turn out to be good. And what looks good can turn out to be bad. We just can not know what comes of what or why. Best to just go with the flow without adding any labels or judgement of what is good or what is bad. Tolle: "The deeper interconnectedness of all things and events implies that the mental labels of "good" and "bad" are ultimately illusory. They always imply a limited perspective and so are true only relatively and temporarily. This is illustrated in the story of a wise man who won an expensive car in a lottery. His family and friends were very happy for him and came to celebrate. "Isn't it great!" they said. "You are so lucky." The man smiled and said, "Maybe." For a few weeks he enjoyed driving the car. Then one day a drunken driver crashed into his new car at an intersection and he ended up in the hospital, with multiple injuries. His family and friends came to see him and said, "That was really unfortunate." Again the man smiled and said, "Maybe." While he was still in the hospital, one night there was a landslide and his house fell into the sea. Again his friends came the next day and said, "Weren't you lucky to have been here in hospital." Again he said, "Maybe." The wise man's "maybe" signifies a refusal to judge anything that happens. Instead of judging what is, he accepts it and so enters into conscious alignment with the higher order. He knows that often it is impossible for the mind to understand what place or purpose a seemingly random event has in the tapestry of the whole. But there are no random events, nor are there events or things that exist by and for themselves, in isolation. On a practical level putting one's self in judgement is binding and self limiting in a boundless and limitless universe....
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 9, 2014 14:50:51 GMT -5
Discernment, as I see it, is pure seeing, witnessing, and therefore is dispassionate. It's possible to watch your house burn down and be free of any judgement about it. Judgement, again as I see, is when emotion, especially negative emotion, is added to the seeing. Resentment, anger, upset indulged in while watching your house burn down effectively adds judgement to otherwise pure seeing. The wise man knows not to judge anything good or bad, because what looks bad can turn out to be good. And what looks good can turn out to be bad. We just can not know what comes of what or why. Best to just go with the flow without adding any labels or judgement of what is good or what is bad. Tolle: "The deeper interconnectedness of all things and events implies that the mental labels of "good" and "bad" are ultimately illusory. They always imply a limited perspective and so are true only relatively and temporarily. This is illustrated in the story of a wise man who won an expensive car in a lottery. His family and friends were very happy for him and came to celebrate. "Isn't it great!" they said. "You are so lucky." The man smiled and said, "Maybe." For a few weeks he enjoyed driving the car. Then one day a drunken driver crashed into his new car at an intersection and he ended up in the hospital, with multiple injuries. His family and friends came to see him and said, "That was really unfortunate." Again the man smiled and said, "Maybe." While he was still in the hospital, one night there was a landslide and his house fell into the sea. Again his friends came the next day and said, "Weren't you lucky to have been here in hospital." Again he said, "Maybe." The wise man's "maybe" signifies a refusal to judge anything that happens. Instead of judging what is, he accepts it and so enters into conscious alignment with the higher order. He knows that often it is impossible for the mind to understand what place or purpose a seemingly random event has in the tapestry of the whole. But there are no random events, nor are there events or things that exist by and for themselves, in isolation. This is an oldie that Tolle updated. The older version I heard was the wise father whose son broke his leg, etc. The phenomena of folks uttering "thank God!" or "we're lucky" when some disaster destroys everything except <fill in the blank> is interesting. It's very widespread and crosses all sorts of belief systems. Maybe it's just a hardwired coping mechanism -- seek out the silver lining so depression and grief don't paralyze you into inaction. Something interesting to look at is how people diffuse different kinds of tension. When we anticipate events, our subconscious queues up responses. If the event doesn't manifest then the energy tied up in the queued response needs to dissipate. If someone is prone to react to an undesired idea, then they will queue up a response to the presence of the idea. The cognitive dissonance is a tension that needs to be dissipated. When someone utters "thank God event X didn't impact you negatively", what I interpret it as is an expression to dismiss or diffuse the cognitive dissonance rising in response to the thought of you being impacted negatively by event X. To me its really a "thank God I don't have to be concerned, worry, stress out, feel bad (for you)". Making the utterance is part of the process of dismissing the idea, and bleeding off the tension arising in response to its presence.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 9, 2014 15:32:13 GMT -5
Discernment, as I see it, is pure seeing, witnessing, and therefore is dispassionate. It's possible to watch your house burn down and be free of any judgement about it. Judgement, again as I see, is when emotion, especially negative emotion, is added to the seeing. Resentment, anger, upset indulged in while watching your house burn down effectively adds judgement to otherwise pure seeing. The wise man knows not to judge anything good or bad, because what looks bad can turn out to be good. And what looks good can turn out to be bad. We just can not know what comes of what or why. Best to just go with the flow without adding any labels or judgement of what is good or what is bad. Tolle: "The deeper interconnectedness of all things and events implies that the mental labels of "good" and "bad" are ultimately illusory. They always imply a limited perspective and so are true only relatively and temporarily. This is illustrated in the story of a wise man who won an expensive car in a lottery. His family and friends were very happy for him and came to celebrate. "Isn't it great!" they said. "You are so lucky." The man smiled and said, "Maybe." For a few weeks he enjoyed driving the car. Then one day a drunken driver crashed into his new car at an intersection and he ended up in the hospital, with multiple injuries. His family and friends came to see him and said, "That was really unfortunate." Again the man smiled and said, "Maybe." While he was still in the hospital, one night there was a landslide and his house fell into the sea. Again his friends came the next day and said, "Weren't you lucky to have been here in hospital." Again he said, "Maybe." The wise man's "maybe" signifies a refusal to judge anything that happens. Instead of judging what is, he accepts it and so enters into conscious alignment with the higher order. He knows that often it is impossible for the mind to understand what place or purpose a seemingly random event has in the tapestry of the whole. But there are no random events, nor are there events or things that exist by and for themselves, in isolation. This is an oldie that Tolle updated. The older version I heard was the wise father whose son broke his leg, etc. The phenomena of folks uttering "thank God!" or "we're lucky" when some disaster destroys everything except <fill in the blank> is interesting. It's very widespread and crosses all sorts of belief systems. Maybe it's just a hardwired coping mechanism -- seek out the silver lining so depression and grief don't paralyze you into inaction. Maybe :-)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 9, 2014 21:15:33 GMT -5
Yes, it's very tricky if one is judging the distinction rather than discerning it. Errors are discerned, faults are judgments. The attempt to be positive and non-judgmental is already a judgment placed on oneself that one is being too negative and judgmental. As such, one cannot approach that distinction as a means of behavior modification. One cannot say, 'I am being too judgmental and need to learn to discern'. This is also why one who is viewing others through judgment cannot discern when others are viewing through discernment. It's not just tricky, it's impossible. One must lose one's ability to judge, and only then can the distinction between judgment and discernment be discerned rather than judged. This loss is a consequence of the realization of non-volition and non-separation, and may have such a profound effect on one's ability to place blame and cultivate retribution that there may be a period of mourning for that loss. Discernment, as I see it, is pure seeing, witnessing, and therefore is dispassionate. It's possible to watch your house burn down and be free of any judgement about it. Judgement, again as I see, is when emotion, especially negative emotion, is added to the seeing. Resentment, anger, upset indulged in while watching your house burn down effectively adds judgement to otherwise pure seeing. The wise man knows not to judge anything good or bad, because what looks bad can turn out to be good. And what looks good can turn out to be bad. We just can not know what comes of what or why. Best to just go with the flow without adding any labels or judgement of what is good or what is bad. Tolle: "The deeper interconnectedness of all things and events implies that the mental labels of "good" and "bad" are ultimately illusory. They always imply a limited perspective and so are true only relatively and temporarily. This is illustrated in the story of a wise man who won an expensive car in a lottery. His family and friends were very happy for him and came to celebrate. "Isn't it great!" they said. "You are so lucky." The man smiled and said, "Maybe." For a few weeks he enjoyed driving the car. Then one day a drunken driver crashed into his new car at an intersection and he ended up in the hospital, with multiple injuries. His family and friends came to see him and said, "That was really unfortunate." Again the man smiled and said, "Maybe." While he was still in the hospital, one night there was a landslide and his house fell into the sea. Again his friends came the next day and said, "Weren't you lucky to have been here in hospital." Again he said, "Maybe." The wise man's "maybe" signifies a refusal to judge anything that happens. Instead of judging what is, he accepts it and so enters into conscious alignment with the higher order. He knows that often it is impossible for the mind to understand what place or purpose a seemingly random event has in the tapestry of the whole. But there are no random events, nor are there events or things that exist by and for themselves, in isolation. So if we could know whether a happening were to turn out good or bad, we would then be justified in making a judgment about it?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 9, 2014 21:23:32 GMT -5
Discernment, as I see it, is pure seeing, witnessing, and therefore is dispassionate. It's possible to watch your house burn down and be free of any judgement about it. Judgement, again as I see, is when emotion, especially negative emotion, is added to the seeing. Resentment, anger, upset indulged in while watching your house burn down effectively adds judgement to otherwise pure seeing. The wise man knows not to judge anything good or bad, because what looks bad can turn out to be good. And what looks good can turn out to be bad. We just can not know what comes of what or why. Best to just go with the flow without adding any labels or judgement of what is good or what is bad. Tolle: "The deeper interconnectedness of all things and events implies that the mental labels of "good" and "bad" are ultimately illusory. They always imply a limited perspective and so are true only relatively and temporarily. This is illustrated in the story of a wise man who won an expensive car in a lottery. His family and friends were very happy for him and came to celebrate. "Isn't it great!" they said. "You are so lucky." The man smiled and said, "Maybe." For a few weeks he enjoyed driving the car. Then one day a drunken driver crashed into his new car at an intersection and he ended up in the hospital, with multiple injuries. His family and friends came to see him and said, "That was really unfortunate." Again the man smiled and said, "Maybe." While he was still in the hospital, one night there was a landslide and his house fell into the sea. Again his friends came the next day and said, "Weren't you lucky to have been here in hospital." Again he said, "Maybe." The wise man's "maybe" signifies a refusal to judge anything that happens. Instead of judging what is, he accepts it and so enters into conscious alignment with the higher order. He knows that often it is impossible for the mind to understand what place or purpose a seemingly random event has in the tapestry of the whole. But there are no random events, nor are there events or things that exist by and for themselves, in isolation. This is an oldie that Tolle updated. The older version I heard was the wise father whose son broke his leg, etc. The phenomena of folks uttering "thank God!" or "we're lucky" when some disaster destroys everything except <fill in the blank> is interesting. It's very widespread and crosses all sorts of belief systems. Maybe it's just a hardwired coping mechanism -- seek out the silver lining so depression and grief don't paralyze you into inaction. Yeah, I think that's it. It also gives a sense that something is in control, even if He didn't step in quite as soon as He could have, which can be explained with the mysterious plan idea. 'Thank God that God killed everyone in the village but spared me.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 7:28:08 GMT -5
This is an oldie that Tolle updated. The older version I heard was the wise father whose son broke his leg, etc. The phenomena of folks uttering "thank God!" or "we're lucky" when some disaster destroys everything except <fill in the blank> is interesting. It's very widespread and crosses all sorts of belief systems. Maybe it's just a hardwired coping mechanism -- seek out the silver lining so depression and grief don't paralyze you into inaction. Something interesting to look at is how people diffuse different kinds of tension. When we anticipate events, our subconscious queues up responses. If the event doesn't manifest then the energy tied up in the queued response needs to dissipate. If someone is prone to react to an undesired idea, then they will queue up a response to the presence of the idea. The cognitive dissonance is a tension that needs to be dissipated. When someone utters "thank God event X didn't impact you negatively", what I interpret it as is an expression to dismiss or diffuse the cognitive dissonance rising in response to the thought of you being impacted negatively by event X. To me its really a "thank God I don't have to be concerned, worry, stress out, feel bad (for you)". Making the utterance is part of the process of dismissing the idea, and bleeding off the tension arising in response to its presence. Yes that's a good general explanation. Basically the mind seeking pleasure and avoiding pain again.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 10, 2014 8:07:32 GMT -5
So if we could know whether a happening were to turn out good or bad, we would then be justified in making a judgment about it? To my way of seeing it that implies knowing how each link in the chain of events will turn out for eternity because no event stands alone. So if you could know how something would turn out in ad infinitum would there ever be a need for an emotional reaction (judgement) to any of it along the way? If so, to what end? (pardon the pun :-)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 10, 2014 10:35:54 GMT -5
So if we could know whether a happening were to turn out good or bad, we would then be justified in making a judgment about it? To my way of seeing it that implies knowing how each link in the chain of events will turn out for eternity because no event stands alone. So if you could know how something would turn out in ad infinitum would there ever be a need for an emotional reaction (judgement) to any of it along the way? If so, to what end? (pardon the pun :-) The parable offers a wrong focus as it suggests we shouldn't judge because we don't know if we have the right information, implying that if we did have the right information, a judgment would be appropriate. The basis for releasing judgment is that there is no-one to blame. We had a discussion a while back about the notion that everything is happening as it should, and I took exception to that. Instead, we can say that nobody and nothing is in control of what happens, and so there is nowhere to place blame. As such, we cannot say something should NOT have happened. (Which does not imply that what did happen should have happened) Ultimately, judgment is the idea that something should not have happened. Also, I don't join judgment with emotional reactions. One may mourn the loss of a loved one simply as a consequence of loving in this dualistic world, and yet no-one is to blame, and nothing happened that should not have happened. Feeling is not equivalent to suffering, or to judgment.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 10, 2014 14:15:01 GMT -5
The parable offers a wrong focus as it suggests we shouldn't judge because we don't know if we have the right information, implying that if we did have the right information, a judgment would be appropriate. It offers a wrong focus only if that is all you see it offering. Also, I don't join judgment with emotional reactions. I have no problem joining judgement with emotional reactions. If, when your boat sinks, you feel personal loss and pain because you had part of your identity tied up in being a boat owner, and you are angry about it, wish it hadn't happened, and consider it the worse day of your life, and think that you will never be happy again, I call that short sighted judgement of the situation based on an emotional reaction to what happened.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 10, 2014 15:18:13 GMT -5
The parable offers a wrong focus as it suggests we shouldn't judge because we don't know if we have the right information, implying that if we did have the right information, a judgment would be appropriate. It offers a wrong focus only if that is all you see it offering. What else do you see it offering? Also, I don't join judgment with emotional reactions. You ignored my scenario and substituted one in which there is identification with a material object.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 10, 2014 15:57:55 GMT -5
You ignored my scenario and substituted one in which there is identification with a material object. Your scenario denied the joining of judgement and emotional reaction. I suggested a scenario illustrating how judgement and emotional reaction can indeed be joined.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2014 16:11:26 GMT -5
The parable offers a wrong focus as it suggests we shouldn't judge because we don't know if we have the right information, implying that if we did have the right information, a judgment would be appropriate. It offers a wrong focus only if that is all you see it offering. Also, I don't join judgment with emotional reactions. I have no problem joining judgement with emotional reactions. If, when your boat sinks, you feel personal loss and pain because you had part of your identity tied up in being a boat owner, and you are angry about it, wish it hadn't happened, and consider it the worse day of your life, and think that you will never be happy again, I call that short sighted judgement of the situation based on an emotional reaction to what happened. ??..? Checking with your wife that the boat was insured, would be much more conducive to an adult emotional response, than spiraling into thinking you will never be happy again.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jul 10, 2014 16:19:06 GMT -5
It offers a wrong focus only if that is all you see it offering. I have no problem joining judgement with emotional reactions. If, when your boat sinks, you feel personal loss and pain because you had part of your identity tied up in being a boat owner, and you are angry about it, wish it hadn't happened, and consider it the worse day of your life, and think that you will never be happy again, I call that short sighted judgement of the situation based on an emotional reaction to what happened. ??..? Checking with your wife that the boat was insured, would be much more conducive to an adult emotional response, than spiraling into thinking you will never be happy again. Perhaps so.
|
|