The wisdom of India simbolizes Ethics or dharma with a bull. As a bull has four legs, dharma rests on four fundamental principles: 1) veracity, 2) cleanness, 3) mercy or non-violence and 4) austerity.
I will not explain these principles in deep, because I would have to enter a certain point of view about certain questions, such as what happens with violence against animals... but I will try to go into certain fundamental pointsand I believe -I hope- that we all will be able to agree in those at least. And if it is not the case, as I said before, never mind, I just hope this is useful to your own Ethics. Here we go:
About the first, veracity, I have already written in "The 3 of the new Ethics...". There I apply the concept of veracity to the words, relations and actions, in the form of true knowledge (not false), sincere love (not dishonest) and correct action (not failed). Please read that post.
About the second, cleanness, I will explain in this ocassion, beyond exterior cleanness, which is good no doubt, the delicate issue of intentions.
Intentions only a Supreme Being could know them, that is for sure, so the cleanness starts by recognizing that nobody can know the true intentions of another person unless that person reveal them himself. So it is matter of each one´s consciousness (Ethics) to care for the cleanness of his own intentions.
The trully ethical intention means zero egoism: any action that I do with the intention of obtaining a benefit for myself is incorrect in its essence, it goes against the "ideal world" -of which we spoke in the previous post- because it puts the accent in reclaiming to others what they "owe to me" instead of concentrating my consciousness in what "I can do for the other". And to make things more complex, there exists the "extended egoism", which means to seek benefits for my afiliates, family, partners or friends.
All of this is perfectly analyzed by diverse true spiritual masters - or as I call them "life masters" and that is why I will not go deeper into, unless you ask me to in the commentaries.
The final word, then, is once more triple and one: desinterested word, desinterested love and desinterested action.
About mercy, in the first place we must distinguish between the different social responsabilities for diverse social roles. So a judge, he cannot be merciful. He cannot say: "this man killed the other really, but we are going to forgive him". No: he must condemn that man, as much as the law says.
For whoever is not a judge, he must not assume the functions of a judge. Mercy as the ability to return a non-violent action to a violent action, is the source of that happiness known as "peace". Answering violence with more violence only brings suffering (unless you are a type of judge). I have intelligent and experienced readers, so I dont need to probe this last asertion, which fundaments in the karma or action-reaction law.
Austerity refers to "accepting what you deserve" or in other words, each one must learn to live with that which is "his quote" or "his part". Any other conception is greediness. Greed means in the last instance the insatisfaction of a necessity and the concomitant desire of obtaining something that satisfy us. So what we must analyze is if what we feel as a necessity really is so, if it is ony a fancy, desire for something with no reason or with a reason that doesnt obey to a rationale of the utility of the object or relation in question for our life. The utilitarian principle must be then our guide. Of course then it arises a question: "useful for whom?"
This question is very complex. To start, the insatisfaction of necessities is at plain sight today, and we can say without fault that it is caused by a bad distribution of riches. Again, so my masters say. But by the other hand, it is also true that many times, when one gives opportunities to such needed people, they simply waste it, administering in the worst way which you give to them. I know what I am talking about. I have observed it and I have listened to many persons that have worked to better the lives of the poor and have seen the same.
So it seems that what we really have to distribute is a proper education. And that, dear readers, is what we are doing here: starting by teaching the teachers. Because at this time I know that not any person comes to read a blog of philosophy or Ethics, but those persons who have a genuine interest in leading others, such as philophers, psichologists, educators, social assitants, etc. That´s why I make this humble effort to share from what I know to potential social leaders, or true and already leaders.
Poor are poor because they dont know how to administrate. Even worst, many of them are proud, envious, with uncontroled senses and mind. All these things I have told you in previous posts, how a person with such chracteristics could´nt ever find peace or happiness in his life. Beware! I am not saying that all poor people is like this, that would be a form of discrimination; but I have seen because I have personal and other´s experience, that many are like this. I sincerely believe that we must do a scientific investigation about this aseverations of mine.
I will put it more clearly: Many rich men and medium class men have the same mentioned problems, except one: they know how to administrate in less or more extent. Then, the true difference is that the poor doesnt know how to administrate. Does it implies that by only teaching him how to administrate we solve the problem of poverty? NO: because there are still the other issues. In fact, the middle class man who has such characteristics as mentioned, can never better his situation, in fact he goes deeper and deeper into debts. And the sons of rich people they usually have this characteristics, specially because they had all for free, then they end up with all properties in mortgage... Is it so or not?
Then first the first: it is an urgent necessity to teach all people, all people, to be austere. Or in other words: 1) To know perfectly themselves, their likes and qualities; 2) each one must assume a social role and the concomitant responsabilities according to that self-knowledge; 3) Each one must determinate which are his true and real necessities, based on the social function that he assumed; 4) Each one must work his consciousness and being to be austere in the sense of accepting only what he needs and not a single grain in excess; 5) every one must be teached to correctly administrate his part...
I could go on enumerating, but I want to concentrate on point (4): It is because of this point that in previous posts I insisted in the necessity of each one having to search for his "life master" or "consciousness master". When I say this I mean: that there is a master for each one of us, he can be the same of another person, or different, that doesnt matter, recognizing such a master is a pending task in the life of each one of us at this moment of our re-evolution.
I cannot teach you, dear reader, what you need to learn in particular, but if you simply accept this search, I can assure you, you will find your "consciousness master", unique and non-repeatable, such as you are unique and non-repeatable.
(I still lack to explain why we must consider different social roles with different "quantities" of necessities. Here arises the roots of the problem of envy, which I mentioned before. Wanting to have what apparently makes happy another one -specially by imitating the "rich and powerful"- is a very dificult problem, with even worst repercutions, such as depopulation of rural areas and the urban misery... but that is a very concrete theme and it needs long debates, so I will not go into it. I will explain why in more detail soon.)
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Continuation of the Ethics proposal
I want to retake the Ethics issue. The first I will do is to analyze a fundamental concept: there cannot be Ethics without a north, a star, an ideal.
In previous posts I have explained the concept of "spiritual world", calling it "spiritual" as oposite to the "material" sorld. He whom I know as my main master, Srila Prabhupada, who masterly translated the Bhagavad-Gita "as it is", in one of his books he has named this spiritual world as the "antimaterial world", because its characteristics are just opposite to those of the "material" world - this world where you, my reader, and me, are living at this very moment.
What I propose now is that you follow me to see how far it takes us to imagine this "spiritual world" as our "ideal world" or guide-star.
I have spoken before of certain attractive characteristics of the spiritual world, but today I will focus on those that we are interested in from Ethics perspective. And those characteristics have to do with the relations between persons. Ethics takes birth from the necessity of coordinating the lifes of many persons.
In the spiritual or ideal world, there rule certain fundamental principles:
1) Each person has plain consciousness of who he is, which are his likes and dislikes, which are his qualities and which are his self-assumed responsabilities.
2) Everybody do the tasks that they like, and there are persons for all the likes, so all the tasks are done.
3) Everybody without exception, they perfectly perform all their self-assumed responsabilities without fail.
4a) Everybody does it without expecting a reward. In other words: unconditionally.
4b) Everybody do it by love, pure love, again: unconditionally.
5) Of course there exist the ocium, but the way the persons face it is non-different from the way in which they do their works. In fact there is no distinction between work and ocium, because that distinction is due to our present condition where "work" means effort, something we do with total or partial dislike. In the ideal condition, each task done by each person is liked by him and also he has the necessary qualities to do it perfectly.
To give a quotidian example, in my home I have assumed certain tasks as mine: every kind of transacting like shopping, banking, etc., to wash dishes and clothes, and sometimes water plants, sweeping, and similar tasks. Oh! and cleaning everything I use, like the bath. For the rest of things I dont bother, another person does it for me. I dont expect that she do it for me, nor does she expect something from me. We do it simply because we assumed those responsabilities, but in deep we do it because we love each other.
I add that I enjoy cleaning or going to bank, I valuate it because it keeps me in phisical activity without having to pay extra gymnasium.
If we add the presence of a son or daughter, well oriental wisdom says that the love of a mother for his son is the most similar to the "ideal" love, because it is unconditional (the son cannot give you something in exchange, materially speaking).
When you analyze a wider society, the problem is you not always find reciprocity; but that is not an excuse: if we assume a responsability, we must accomplish the task. That really means we are already "mature" and responsable.
As far as more people starts being responsable, society will be more and more close to our "ideal world". And at the last instance, according to the action-reaction law or karma law, one receives what one gives, and that is infalible...
I have spoken before of the relation between consciousness, freedom and responsability, in "The mistery of freedom partially revealed". In brief: do not expect freedom if you are not responsable; you will have so much freedom as responsability assumed for your actions.
I wanted to end this post with three postulates or simply advises:
"Start by yourself. Do the first step. To change your world, you change"
"Realize your maturity. Discover who you are and which are your qualities. Decide what you like to do and which will be your responsabilities. Then accomplish them"
"If you cannot do the previous for yourself, search around you for somebody who helps you, guiding you or advising you in concrete matters. I tell you so because I have lived all the stages (until now) and so I know what I am speaking of: before I simply (believed that) I do it by myself, but then I discovered the joy and relief of being able to admit my ignorance at certain times and in certain matters, and consulting with other people that I trust. That is the easiest and best way. The other way you have to become stoic to endure many headaches that your continous erroneous actions provoke to you"
In previous posts I have explained the concept of "spiritual world", calling it "spiritual" as oposite to the "material" sorld. He whom I know as my main master, Srila Prabhupada, who masterly translated the Bhagavad-Gita "as it is", in one of his books he has named this spiritual world as the "antimaterial world", because its characteristics are just opposite to those of the "material" world - this world where you, my reader, and me, are living at this very moment.
What I propose now is that you follow me to see how far it takes us to imagine this "spiritual world" as our "ideal world" or guide-star.
I have spoken before of certain attractive characteristics of the spiritual world, but today I will focus on those that we are interested in from Ethics perspective. And those characteristics have to do with the relations between persons. Ethics takes birth from the necessity of coordinating the lifes of many persons.
In the spiritual or ideal world, there rule certain fundamental principles:
1) Each person has plain consciousness of who he is, which are his likes and dislikes, which are his qualities and which are his self-assumed responsabilities.
2) Everybody do the tasks that they like, and there are persons for all the likes, so all the tasks are done.
3) Everybody without exception, they perfectly perform all their self-assumed responsabilities without fail.
4a) Everybody does it without expecting a reward. In other words: unconditionally.
4b) Everybody do it by love, pure love, again: unconditionally.
5) Of course there exist the ocium, but the way the persons face it is non-different from the way in which they do their works. In fact there is no distinction between work and ocium, because that distinction is due to our present condition where "work" means effort, something we do with total or partial dislike. In the ideal condition, each task done by each person is liked by him and also he has the necessary qualities to do it perfectly.
To give a quotidian example, in my home I have assumed certain tasks as mine: every kind of transacting like shopping, banking, etc., to wash dishes and clothes, and sometimes water plants, sweeping, and similar tasks. Oh! and cleaning everything I use, like the bath. For the rest of things I dont bother, another person does it for me. I dont expect that she do it for me, nor does she expect something from me. We do it simply because we assumed those responsabilities, but in deep we do it because we love each other.
I add that I enjoy cleaning or going to bank, I valuate it because it keeps me in phisical activity without having to pay extra gymnasium.
If we add the presence of a son or daughter, well oriental wisdom says that the love of a mother for his son is the most similar to the "ideal" love, because it is unconditional (the son cannot give you something in exchange, materially speaking).
When you analyze a wider society, the problem is you not always find reciprocity; but that is not an excuse: if we assume a responsability, we must accomplish the task. That really means we are already "mature" and responsable.
As far as more people starts being responsable, society will be more and more close to our "ideal world". And at the last instance, according to the action-reaction law or karma law, one receives what one gives, and that is infalible...
I have spoken before of the relation between consciousness, freedom and responsability, in "The mistery of freedom partially revealed". In brief: do not expect freedom if you are not responsable; you will have so much freedom as responsability assumed for your actions.
I wanted to end this post with three postulates or simply advises:
"Start by yourself. Do the first step. To change your world, you change"
"Realize your maturity. Discover who you are and which are your qualities. Decide what you like to do and which will be your responsabilities. Then accomplish them"
"If you cannot do the previous for yourself, search around you for somebody who helps you, guiding you or advising you in concrete matters. I tell you so because I have lived all the stages (until now) and so I know what I am speaking of: before I simply (believed that) I do it by myself, but then I discovered the joy and relief of being able to admit my ignorance at certain times and in certain matters, and consulting with other people that I trust. That is the easiest and best way. The other way you have to become stoic to endure many headaches that your continous erroneous actions provoke to you"
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
I wanted to remind you
I wanted to remind you that, part of the experience that I propose to you in this blog, is to visit the links by the right. I have worked a lot reading each site to know what to link and what not. Every one of those links take you to blogs or sites that are protagonists of the "re-evolution of consciousness", as I call it at this moment. In fact, I have erased some links that I made carelessly.
That and to write many comments, those are my two first proposals. I repeat that I hate monologues, and specially mine.
In base to the commentaries that you have already left, I think I will leave the topics I was writing about and I will retake the Ethics topic. When I do it, I hope it serves to the construction of your own Ethics. I dont want to dictaminate nothing to nobody, because I am the "server of Nobody".
That and to write many comments, those are my two first proposals. I repeat that I hate monologues, and specially mine.
In base to the commentaries that you have already left, I think I will leave the topics I was writing about and I will retake the Ethics topic. When I do it, I hope it serves to the construction of your own Ethics. I dont want to dictaminate nothing to nobody, because I am the "server of Nobody".
Thursday, November 11, 2010
New Ethics
When you are a kid, you have a type of Ethics based on a binary division, composed of the "good" and "evil". This type of categories of opposites has been useful for us for a long time.
We have already grown up and now we must face the challenge of sharing a new type of Ethics. "Ethics" is the same as "moral" or "values". I don’t use the word "moral" anymore because it has religious connotations that many unconsciously reject, so I propose to unify with the term "Ethics" or if you want, to speak of "values".
In the fundational myth of the Bible, the Genesis, it is explained that to "eat from the tree of the science of Good and Evil" was the first mistake (again, I am avoiding the word "sin"). All the rest of mistakes followed that one: to pretend to determinate for ourselves that which is "good" and that which is "evil". But what is good and what is evil? Why to speak about this?
Basically, for the majority of persons today, the "good" is that which I like and the "bad" is that which I don’t like. This blog is not a "democratic" blog, I am not interested in what the "majority" says and my science is not based on statistics. What I am saying is that in reality, for all of us, it is better to consider good and evil as subjective matters, as "that which I like" and "that which I don’t like". Now, to this "subjective" aspect, or relative aspect, we must confront another "objective" or non-relative aspect, an absolute aspect. I call it the pair "correct" and "incorrect".
There are some relations between the subjective and the objective: when you do the incorrect, you always obtain that which you don’t like. But there is no symmetry here: when you do the correct, you not always obtain what you want, because the "punishment" (from a legal or juridical point of view) is immediately necessary, but the "reward" is not. The reality of our juridical systems seems to say the contrary, but I am considering the reality of a Justice in which human systems are only a part… This topic is long. I will only say that it is related to the oriental concept of "karma" or "law of action and reaction", about which there exists a lot of knowledge circulating today. Go and get it!...
By the contrary, I would like to go in another direction. We must understand what is correct and what is incorrect. This two terms refer to action. We have two ways to approach them:
1) The first way is by authority: this means that we take a person as our personal guide. This person can be like me, but more advanced: to this kind of role you call "master". It can be also an "absolute person", to this one you call "God". In this way there are the many religious and semi-religious ways and I will not go about them.
2) The second way is to amplify our comprehension to be able to advance without an authority apart from ourselves. In this sense, I propose an Ethics based in auto-comprehension and auto-knowledge. Much as Socrates' style.
True Ethics doesn’t mean that I do anything, it means that I do what is proper, the right or correct thing; not by obedience, but because I know what I will call: The True Knowledge, the Sincere Love and the Correct Action. About it I will write on my next post…
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Values
I will tell you which values I believe in today.
I believe in the value of being yourself. I believe in the excelence which means you being really yourself, the best yourself you can achieve.
I believe in freedom with responsability. True freedom, without false morals, and true responsability, with true moral.
That is all I can tell you clearly for now.
"Moral", here, means "values".
I believe in the value of being yourself. I believe in the excelence which means you being really yourself, the best yourself you can achieve.
I believe in freedom with responsability. True freedom, without false morals, and true responsability, with true moral.
That is all I can tell you clearly for now.
"Moral", here, means "values".
Discerning and excelence
I believe that it is not vain nor facist to distingüish between things. "Discernment" it is said. "Discriminate", by the other hand, is a bad word today, so I avoid it. The important thing is to keep objectivity when analyzing, and subjectivity at the time of enjoying intimately. Well, that´s what I think...
The point is: ¿Is it useful/good/necessary/etc. (what you want) to distingüish between things, to discern, to see/point the limits? ¿Or is it better that all things be the same, like an amorphous mass, all equal, all with the same rights, etc. etc. etc.?
I think there are criteria as to say: excelent! or mediocre!
But I don´t have the habit to use a waste. In the worst cases, I simply recomend a change of heading or job.
The point is: ¿Is it useful/good/necessary/etc. (what you want) to distingüish between things, to discern, to see/point the limits? ¿Or is it better that all things be the same, like an amorphous mass, all equal, all with the same rights, etc. etc. etc.?
I think there are criteria as to say: excelent! or mediocre!
But I don´t have the habit to use a waste. In the worst cases, I simply recomend a change of heading or job.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Judgement
There are 2 big vices that cover our intelligence and delay our evolution:
1) To believe that we know other people´s intentions.
2) To dedicate our selves to activities that doesn´t match our nature (our own way to be and to do), nor our assumed social role.
Concerning (1) we can call it "conjecture" and also "judgement of intention". The tipical phrase would be: "he did it because..." or also "he did it for...". What do we know about causes of actions? What does the other know about it? Do we always act with absolute freedom or are there conditions?
Concerning (2) it is particularly harmful what I call "denigrant judgement". It consists in the habit to qualify other people negatively, specially with political or economic intentions.
Of course, there are people who -justly- dedicate to these activities. We could include all of them with the name of "judges", which refers to referees, critics, juries, and even the parental rol, when the father or the mother judge the actions of their children. In such cases we don´t consider the point (2).
1) To believe that we know other people´s intentions.
2) To dedicate our selves to activities that doesn´t match our nature (our own way to be and to do), nor our assumed social role.
Concerning (1) we can call it "conjecture" and also "judgement of intention". The tipical phrase would be: "he did it because..." or also "he did it for...". What do we know about causes of actions? What does the other know about it? Do we always act with absolute freedom or are there conditions?
Concerning (2) it is particularly harmful what I call "denigrant judgement". It consists in the habit to qualify other people negatively, specially with political or economic intentions.
Of course, there are people who -justly- dedicate to these activities. We could include all of them with the name of "judges", which refers to referees, critics, juries, and even the parental rol, when the father or the mother judge the actions of their children. In such cases we don´t consider the point (2).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)