Do you ever think...

For those wondering we took it to pm because it is sensitive material for me. I hope you ll understand.

Manu wrote:

ནའдհдཀ༑ནკ wrote: Interesting how you approach this discussions I must say.

Thank you

ནའдհдཀ༑ནკ wrote: As to your comment on Antarctica, would the threat of frostbite really change ones perception of beauty, or would one just take more defensive measures to be able to observe that beauty?

Heh, I was trying to make an absurd example to "balance" (hehe) that Obi-wan quote. :side:

ནའдհдཀ༑ནკ wrote: I suggest that we live in a state of balance. Constant good and evil all around us.

What do you mean by constant? And what exactly is good or evil? Your original post mused about the worthiness of doing good because evil will rise up to meet it. How does this work, practically? Can you offer an example?

ནའдհдཀ༑ནკ wrote: I think balance is a key term to our lives. Calmness is a balance between fear and jubilation. Indulging, negating, overreacting and not reacting are luxuries not a state anyone should strive for.

Why?

Constant being as it's always there whether we initiate or act on it or not it's still there. Simply put, because of the constant flow of the force. We are a simple buoys in the ocean that is the force, always there but sometimes invisible to everything else. Good and evil are indeed just ones perception of something, anything for that matter.

I will always see the subjugation of anyone as inherently evil, however, is not the student subjugated to the teacher? A coin has two sides but when balanced properly, both can be revealed.

As an example, how about war? In recent memory, Iraqi freedom. A war to liberate a people who don't know how to live liberated lives. A region that truly has not know stability in thousands of years. Perception being your own you will see it as you do, being either good or evil. If you see it on a purely Zen plane of just being what it is, this is not a common trait shared in this world.

Best of intentions, goals, perceptions, all good or bad based on someone's point of view. And still a constant that was, is, and will be. I can't make someone change anything about themselves except that I am evil in forcing that change. But someone understands my point of view and makes a change for them self, now what I've done is good.

In my line of work there are times that in another's point of view I am acting as an agent of evil, while those I work with view that same act to be worthy of sainthood. So what I suppose I am saying is that every effort you make to do something you believe to be true, honest, and/or good, is still evil, false, and/or bad.

On to your last question "why?" Why what? Why is balance a key term, calmness a balance, or not to strive for an extreme? Maybe I already answered all that, if not, I suppose I'll never be able to answer any of them.

Quickly Tragamite I want to Say here something I also said in my most recent post.
In lesson 1 part 1 of the IP some guy says nirvana (i understand balance) is a place you are not compelled anymore to do or feel whatever you want.
Why according to you and most people balance is an equilibrium (sorry Kyrin haha) between fear and jubilation? And doesn't it means the absence of feeling in your definition?
The ip lesson would suggest that it is a place from which you can do as easily extreme and moderate things dont you think? Where is this place?

Flojade wrote: Quickly Tragamite I want to Say here something I also said in my most recent post.
In lesson 1 part 1 of the IP some guy says nirvana (i understand balance) is a place you are not compelled anymore to do or feel whatever you want.
Why according to you and most people balance is an equilibrium (sorry Kyrin haha) between fear and jubilation? And doesn't it means the absence of feeling in your definition?
The ip lesson would suggest that it is a place from which you can do as easily extreme and moderate things dont you think? Where is this place?

For me, my definition of balance is an understanding of your emotional state so that, while you feel emotion it is not your motivator to act.

In exactly what you referenced for IP, Campbell talks about the samurai who seeks out the assassin of his master. When he finds the assassin he takes out his sword and prepares to bring justice to his master. Just as he raises his sword the assassin spits in his face. The samurai then sheaths his sword and walks away. Why? Because being spit on caused the samurai to become angry with the assassin, striking at that moment would have become a personal matter of vengeance and not justice.

Could you have stayed your blade? How will return to claim justice for your master, and will the assassin reuse this tactic to halt you again. How do we overcome our feelings and stay focused on task?

I think a very good analogy is Jedi marriage. Is there really such a thing? Most Jedi would view marriage as taboo due to the emotional nature and forming attachment.

Is it forbidden to care for one person over all others? Attachment implies an inability to let go.

Balance doesn't mean we don't feel pain at the loss, but rather we have an understanding of the will of the force and can cope and move on rather than linger in the past and resent the fact we all must rejoin the force at sometime.

Operating in an extreme environment is completely different than operating rationally in an extreme emotional state. I'd dare say it's impossible to be rational in that extreme state. Whether that extreme is overjoyment or despair I think you are more likely to error when acting in an extreme emotional state. We just tend to drop our guard on these occasions.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but finding yourself on either spectrum, and bringing yourself back into balance will heighten your senses overall. At least this is how I perceive it.

ནའдհдཀ༑ནკ wrote:
As an example, how about war? In recent memory, Iraqi freedom. A war to liberate a people who don't know how to live liberated lives.

I dont think thats what that war was about. I do think its a great example of how otherwise good people might be the perpetuators of an evil movement. The American sodliers who went in and did the killing and the dying were told that it was a war of liberation, but that doesnt mean the politicians who sent them were driven by some altruistic desire to save an oppressed people... or even a genuine perception of need in the service of national defense. The govt gave a lot of justifications for that invasion but none of them ever added up: so maybe they just lied about why they wanted to invade? Odd coincidence that Halliburton got all those infratructure contracts?
(See Cheney/Halliburton connections if youre unfamiliar).

I seem to recall the Darfur region of Sudan having some pretty nasty business going on around that same time, arguably much worse than the Hussein regime (awful as it was) but the US (Bush) administration never said a word about that. On that note, I doubt theres ever been a shortage of oppressed people in the world, but i doubt even more that theres ever been a nation really committed to the liberation business. Certainly America never was (well except for our own lol).

I am a person that tries to look at the positives around me. Now, I understand it can be hard at times to do that. Right now, I am currently looking for a new job because my company has decided to close the store...I could be angry and upset and worried but, I also know that I will find a job and obviously this wasn't meant to be. Media, now this is my own opinion but, the media lies 5% of what they tell you is the actually story 95% is lies and filler to get you to listen. They tend to be on the negative side of things because people will listen to a crazy story filled with shock value versus if they we're to write a story of a man saving a little girls cat from outta tree...yes, it's cute but, I would be more inclined to read about a forest fire going on in California or a flood in Texas than I would a good SAM. helping a little girl get her kitty...I am sorry that sounds bad how it's coming out and maybe that is just human nature but, it's the truth.

I think there is a balance between the two in all corners of the world but, often times we don't see it because we ourselves are not balanced in our thinking, our perception visually, or spiritually in some cases. We tend to focus too much on one or the other. For example, I am a Jedi I believe in the "light" side of the living Force. Now, when I first became a Jedi everything was about the light side and getting rid of the "Dark" side of the Force. However, as I have learned and considered how jaded and narrow minded that thinking is how unbalanced that is.

Now, I am not saying that every aspect of the "dark" side is good or should be used or accepted because on my journey there are many things that I still do not accept for example lying, stealing, raw uncontrolled anger, selfishness thinking of only ones self and not others, ect.

Others, I could say that are important is self healing or taking care of yourself so that you can take care of others (after all, if you cannot take care of yourself how can you care for others...but, you don't need to be selfish about it either), being honest even if it upsets someone don't sugar coat something with others be open it also avoids gossip, acceptance of all people and things. I could go on a rant but, these are just some of my opinions and I hope they can help you on your journey of balance

OB1Shinobi wrote:

ནའдհдཀ༑ནკ wrote:
As an example, how about war? In recent memory, Iraqi freedom. A war to liberate a people who don't know how to live liberated lives.

I dont think thats what that war was about. I do think its a great example of how otherwise good people might be the perpetuators of an evil movement. The American sodliers who went in and did the killing and the dying were told that it was a war of liberation, but that doesnt mean the politicians who sent them were driven by some altruistic desire to save an oppressed people... or even a genuine perception of need in the service of national defense. The govt gave a lot of justifications for that invasion but none of them ever added up: so maybe they just lied about why they wanted to invade? Odd coincidence that Halliburton got all those infratructure contracts?
(See Cheney/Halliburton connections if youre unfamiliar).

I seem to recall the Darfur region of Sudan having some pretty nasty business going on around that same time, arguably much worse than the Hussein regime (awful as it was) but the US (Bush) administration never said a word about that. On that note, I doubt theres ever been a shortage of oppressed people in the world, but i doubt even more that theres ever been a nation really committed to the liberation business. Certainly America never was (well except for our own lol).

Don't get me wrong, there are literally thousands of underlying reasons for America to invade Iraq. Any reason whether right or wrong, good or evil, ultimately were undermined by a new regime in America. I myself spent 2 1/2 years in Iraq and understand the GOOD people's plight. Saddam had to be dethroned but proper actions were not taken to enlightening and support all parties in the area, and withdrawing just made things a million times worse.

Everyone I fought with, the brothers and sisters who's families only got to be reunited with an empty vessel of this life, all the friendly and helpful people I met their, that wanted to see a new and better future for themselves, all in vain.

I'm not a politician, I know they have some hard choices to deal with, and I hope that most of the go to bed at night truly thinking of what bills they can write to better the world or at least their country.

ནའдհдཀ༑ནკ wrote: Don't get me wrong, there are literally thousands of underlying reasons for America to invade Iraq.

Everyone who participated had their own motivations for doing so, so yes, there were many thousands of reasons. But those reasons came after the decision and arent really important to the question of "was the war necessary?"
The REAL cause the invasion was the motives of our leadership at the time; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. and they probably didnt have "thousands of reasons".

Any reason whether right or wrong, good or evil, ultimately were undermined by a new regime in America.

Yes, the Obama regime. He was a.... darker figure in the history of American politics, for sure. Still, if it was the Bush regime which started the war, and if the Bush regime's decisions were motivaed by evil, is the evil of the Bush regime somehow washed away because the Obama regime made mistakes (even catastrophic ones) afterwards?

I myself spent 2 1/2 years in Iraq and understand the GOOD people's plight.

Thats a long time. Thank you for your willingness to serve and im glad you made it back.
Its a pretty good bet that that youre not going to like reading what ive got to say, so i want to be very clear in expressing that im not trying to attack you or insult you as a person, or implicate you as being as a guilty party.

I see the Iraq invasion as being a complete sham and con job on America...one with an exorbitant cost. Im thankful that our military are willing to go where they are sent... but i think you should never have been sent there to begin with. I think it was a crime to send you, and i think the people who did it had alterior motives and point-blank lied to us all about what they were after.

Saddam had to be dethroned....

The million dollar question: why?
In what ways can we reasonaby assert that America would be worse off today if we had not invaded Iraq? This is the crux of this whole mini-discussion. If you respond to only one thing in this post, let it be this question, please: why did Saddam HAVE to be dethroned?

....but proper actions were not taken to enlightening and support all parties in the area, and withdrawing just made things a million times worse.

No doubt. But Obama and his regime didnt have the sort of ties to the energy industry that his predecessors did. So they didnt have the samemotives for being there.The American people realized theyd heen duped and wanted no more of it, and elected Obama (to a great degree) because he said he would get us out.

Bush promised his friends big energy contracts and illegally invaded another nation/illegally toppled a foreign government in order to keep his promises.
Obama promised America that he would get our people home by Christmas.....
I think we need to be honest about the lessons of both promises.

Everyone I fought with, the brothers and sisters who's families only got to be reunited with an empty vessel of this life, all the friendly and helpful people I met their, that wanted to see a new and better future for themselves, all in vain.

Its truly tragic, i agree with that and im sad for all the death. And also angry. And the only way i see to possibly prevent it from happening again is to be completely skeptical (and even hostile) towards leaders who try to push us into to war. To flatly refuse to take it on faith when they tell us we have to go invade some foreign country. And then to be very, VERY hard on them when it turns out the reasons they gave were B.S.

ནའдհдཀ༑ནკ wrote:
For me, my definition of balance is an understanding of your emotional state so that, while you feel emotion it is not your motivator to act.

In exactly what you referenced for IP, Campbell talks about the samurai who seeks out the assassin of his master. When he finds the assassin he takes out his sword and prepares to bring justice to his master. Just as he raises his sword the assassin spits in his face. The samurai then sheaths his sword and walks away. Why? Because being spit on caused the samurai to become angry with the assassin, striking at that moment would have become a personal matter of vengeance and not justice.

Could you have stayed your blade? How will return to claim justice for your master, and will the assassin reuse this tactic to halt you again. How do we overcome our feelings and stay focused on task?

I think a very good analogy is Jedi marriage. Is there really such a thing? Most Jedi would view marriage as taboo due to the emotional nature and forming attachment.

For me, I would take a completely opposite approach to what you describe here. If I were to have hunted a killer to bring him to justice and he spit in my face and angered me I would not walk away. The reason I would not is because things are just not that black and white but more nuanced. Just because I became angry with him in no way lessens or overshadows the fact that justice still needs to be served. Instead of ignoring that anger and walking away I would use that anger to my advantage to bring more power to my cut to cleanly slice off his head and thus keep him from suffering pain. In this way justice is still served as well as mercy and my anger is utilized in a positive way.

I also don’t think most Jedi would view marriage as taboo. For me I find strength in my attachment. I draw power from those connections and support. We are pack creatures and we need physical and emotional interaction to make us whole individuals. Once again it is not the forming of attachment that is wrong. It is not being able to let go of those things when it is time and in the proper way that can be detrimental. That is personal equilibrium – embracing both extremes of our nature.

I don't think. I find it a good way to live