RE: [BardonPraxis] Re: What does it mean to become noble concerning passions?

["Kathy Glendening" <kglendening@...>]

Greetings, all. I am new to the group and have been, for the most part,
a "lurker". In general, I make few comments unless I feel I might have
something to say that is of value. Clearly, Ravi has given the concept
an enormous amount of thought. I would like to suggest that self
evaluation and soul progression is a life long task, and the more we
take time to analyze our faults and weaknesses, the more we grow. The
more spiritual we grow, the more we understand that qualities which we
may have previously considered to be of value, are really traits which
should be purged. So, if a particular Caesar (we'll make him a ruthless
one) or Genghis Kahn were to spend days examining their souls, I think
that as they progressed spiritually, their perspectives would change as
it came into line with the Spirit. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Ravi Mohan [mailto:magesmail@...] 
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 3:07 PM
To: BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BardonPraxis] Re: What does it mean to become noble concerning
passions?



Rawn
A few questions if i may, just to make sure i have understood this
right ..

you said 
> The process of transformation begins with and hinges upon the Soul
> Mirror *self* analysis of the *present* character. 

also,

> Self-honesty means that *every* valuation you make about your
character
> must be based solely upon how *you* *feel* emotionally and what *you*
> *think* about *your own* actions, emotional habits and habits of
> thinking (i.e., your manifest character).

ok. but does this not mean that there is a possibility of our own
"ideals" being out of whack with social/cultural norms ? For eg a
person could think it is "ok" to dominate others for example, because
he (a) "feels" and thinks that it is right (he could have a world
view in which domination of the weaker by the stronger is the "right
thing")

As a thought experiment let us take someone like say Caesar or Genghis
Khan , who have immense leadership and martial qualities and are
brought up in a culture of conquest(classical Rome or the stepes of
Monglia a particular periods in time).If such a person would do a soul
mirror exercise would he not put down the "ability to dominate others
and bend them to my will" as a *positive* virtue ?and when he
postivizes his soul mirror would he not try to maximise these
qualities ?

On the other hand if a person with such an ability had a "everyone is
equal irrespective of strength" ethic(which would be the case in
modern societies with "equality before law" etc ) the the "will to
dominate" characteristic would be "negative" and something to turn
away from him or use "constructively " (quotes because what
is"constructive" would also vary socially/culturally and situationally) 

>This requires an
> absolute or "radical" honesty with oneself and here is where the
> perennial analogy of the murderer or "black magician" is absurd. 
> By
> definition such an individual would be constitutionally incapable of
> this degree of self-honesty.
> 

> Self-honesty means that *every* valuation you make about your
character
> must be based solely upon how *you* *feel* emotionally and what *you*
> *think* about *your own* actions, emotional habits and habits of
> thinking (i.e., your manifest character). 

ok i am confused here . why would someone be unable to look into
himself just because he kills (say, a soldier or a spy) or practices
occultism without understanding all the nuances of what he does (this
would be the meaning of "black magic" from abrdonian pov rght?) and
believes that invoking spirits and making pacts with them is the
*right way* ?

> When you begin interjecting
> what others think or feel or do then you are not reaching all the way
> down to what *you* are thinking or feeling. *Your* thoughts and
> feelings may very well agree with what others *say* they are thinking
> and feeling, and that's perfectly "okay" so long as they are *your*
> feelings and thoughts. And likewise, *your* thoughts and feelings may
> very well disagree with what others *say* they are thinking and
feeling,
> and that *also* is perfectly "okay" for *you*, even if no one else
> agrees. *All* that matters in *this* process is what *you* think and
> feel about *you*.

yes my concern here is that by this standard if a person always does
what is right acording to your own "feelings" and "thoughts" , he
could still end up doing very destructive things as viewed from the
outside .

Is this still "balanced" ? Is a person whose thoughts emotions and
actions are in harmony balanced if he finds the consequences of his
actions "aceptable" within his examined and accepted world view?


> And of course (I assume this goes without saying but figure I might as
> well say it anyway just to be sure I'm clear enough), the way that our
> actions, thoughts and feelings effect others and our environment are
> important reflections of self that must be considered in any
> self-evaluation. If we feel really great about ourselves but are
> alienating every one around us then something is amiss and way out of
> any sort of *functional* balance. 

considered yes . but the decisions to be taken after that
consideration would still seem to be very uniquely individual and
could range from very "positive" (by a particular set of beliefs) or
"negative" , Are you saying that if the person doing the self analysis
is satisfied emotianally and logicaly about the rightness of his
actions then that is "balanced" ? 


what about if you are alienating some people and gaining the approval
of others ? Do you have to gain the approval of everyone /not
alienbate a single soul in order to be balanced ? just to restate the
point one more time , what if a person feels that a negative behaiour
like killing or domination is a)emotionally "right" b)and logically
"right" as per his world view ?

So would "balance" be culturally dependent ? (i have found a large
part of what seems "right" is very culture dependent .As an extreme
exmple whether one is a "terrorist" "soldier" or "freedom fighter" 
and whether the victims of a terrorist attack/military strike are
"innocent victims" or "collateral damage" would depend very much on
cultural/social assumptions on the rights of the individual, the
nature of war etc .

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated .

Regds, 
NKKA 





_____ 

Yahoo! Groups Links


*       To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BardonPraxis/


*       To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
BardonPraxis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:BardonPraxis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> 


*       Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]